Peter Luff: When the Secretary of State gave his very persuasive evidence to the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee on Tuesday, he indicated that planning permission exists for some 30 GW of generating capacity—I think that he was indicating section 36 consent—a very large proportion of which will not be constructed in practice. Can he therefore confirm whether his Department's view is that there is a very large generating gap for which new nuclear, renewable or even conventional generating capacity must be built, and for which consent does not exist currently?

Mark Lazarowicz: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to see the report from the Renewables Advisory Board, which was published yesterday? Apparently, the RAB says that the market for equipping zero-carbon homes with energy from renewables could amount to almost £2bn a year, but that under current projections, there will not be enough firms supplying biomass boilers or solar panels to meet the increase in zero-carbon housing. What is he doing to help meet the Government's admirable targets in this area, which were set out by the Prime Minister earlier this week?

John Baron: The Minister will be aware that profitable post offices in Billericay and Wickford in my constituency are set for closure under the Government's closure programme. Given that the population in that part of the world is expanding, not shrinking, as evidenced by the boundary commission creating an extra constituency, and given that the closures will hurt many people, particularly the elderly and the disabled, can the Minister honestly explain to the House why those closures are taking place, in view of the profitability of those post offices and the level of population growth? Will he meet me and other Essex MPs to discuss the matter?

Patrick McFadden: I will happily meet the hon. Gentleman and colleagues, if he wishes. As I explained, the closures are happening because the Post Office is losing several million pounds a week and because several million fewer people are going through the doors of our post offices than was the case a couple of years ago. He mentioned profitable post offices, and there are two factors to remember in that regard. First, there is the amount that will be raised and spent within the post office branch. Secondly, the central support cost from the post office network to post office branches must be taken into account. Calculated in that way, some three out of four sub-post offices around the country are unprofitable to Post Office Ltd. That is why the Government have put forward a subsidy of £150 million a year for the post office network. That is a subsidy that did not exist when the Conservatives were in power.

Celia Barlow: My hon. Friend mentioned the macro-economic factors behind the closure of post offices. However, will he pressurise Post Office managers over the fact that the two post offices in my constituency—Trafalgar road in Portslade and Richardson road in Hove—are the centre of tight-knit, old and established shopping areas? Will he meet the local traders, who are filled with alarm at the closures and are worried that they will have an extremely negative effect on their businesses?

Dennis Skinner: Bolsover is in the bottom 50 in terms of deprivation, mainly because of all the pits that were closed under the Tories. But does the Minister accept that when we heard the news that 10 post offices—10—were going to be closed in Bolsover, that was a real body blow to all the affected communities? Will he therefore speak to people at Bolsover district council, which has launched a campaign against those 10 closures?
	Whatever the Minister does about this Crozier fellow, who I think is a waste of space, he should not send him back to the FA.

Charles Hendry: Does the Minister understand why communities feel so betrayed at the consultation exercise, which will make no difference whatever to the number of post offices that will be closed? Why has he ordered the Post Office to stop all closure announcements in the run-up to the local elections in May? Is not the decision to change the date for announcing the closure of one in six of the capital's post offices from just three weeks before the mayoral election more connected with saving Ken Livingstone than with genuine consultation? Will Londoners not see the elections as their final chance to have their say on the future of the post offices? What is bad news for the post box will be bad news for Labour at the ballot box.

Alan Reid: But just last month, Royal Mail stopped sending the mail to Mull on the first ferry of the day. That means that it is being delivered to customers throughout the island two hours later that it has been for many years. The daily newspapers are also affected, meaning that they do not arrive in the shops until about midday. Will the Government, as the owners of Royal Mail, investigate this and demand that Royal Mail give to people on Mull the same service that until last month they had enjoyed for many years?

Graham Allen: I welcome the Secretary of State's written statement this morning on manufacturing. He will know that in Nottingham we have suffered through the closure of the mines and textile industries and the run-down in people's employment at Boot's, Players and Raleigh. Will he ensure that manufacturing still stays at the heart of the Government's economic policies? Will he also, linking back to his previous job, ensure that it ties into the welfare to work strategies that are now being deployed around the country?

Alan Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman should talk to some of his ministerial colleagues who clearly do not agree with him, including the one who resigned—perhaps the only time he said anything constructive about enterprise was when he joined the Conservatives at Oxford. Business start-ups are falling and business support schemes are in disarray. There are continued complaints about UK Trade and Investment, a rising regulatory burden and, I would argue, a sidelined Secretary of State. To which Department should business now turn if it wants to have its interests effectively represented in Whitehall?

Robert Smith: Earlier, the Minister for Energy talked about the problems of fuel poverty. He mentioned social tariffs, which obviously apply to people on the gas and electricity networks. What assessment has he made of the impact of the dramatic increase in oil prices on those in rural areas, who cannot get on to the gas network? What is his strategy for tackling fuel poverty in rural areas that are off the gas main?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 26 November will be—
	Monday 26 November—Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill.
	Tuesday 27 November—Second Reading of the Housing and Regeneration Bill.
	Wednesday 28 November—Opposition day [2nd allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Prisons Crisis", followed by a debate on the performance of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	Thursday 29 November—Topical debate—subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to asylum, followed by a general debate on the Government consultation on convicting rapists and protecting victims.
	Friday 30 November—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 3 December will include—
	Monday 3 December—Remaining stages of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall in December will be—
	Thursday 6 December—A debate on the report from the International Development Committee on Department for International Development assistance to Burmese internally displaced people and refugees on the Thai-Burma border.
	Thursday 13 December—A debate on the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the treatment on asylum seekers.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the future business.
	This morning, the Secretary of State for Transport made a written statement about the expansion of Heathrow. She was happy to make a statement to business leaders yesterday and to spin it to the "Today" programme this morning, so why has not she been to the House to make an oral statement? That would enable hon. Members, who, like me, have constituency interests, to question her. Every week, the Leader of the House tells us that she puts Parliament first; every week, her colleagues treat Parliament with disdain.
	On Monday, we discovered that the Government have no idea how much taxpayers' money might be paid out after the £24 billion bail-out of Northern Rock. The Chancellor told the Select Committee on Treasury:
	"we fully expect to be able to get that money back."
	Now he refuses to say for certain that the money will ever be paid back. There are many questions still to be answered. What is the total Government liability? What arrangements are in place if the Government need a supplementary estimate to cover their liabilities? How are they accounting for the liabilities, and are those liabilities on or off balance sheet? What estimate has been made of the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement? Will the Chancellor make another Northern Rock statement, so that he can answer those questions?
	On Tuesday we discovered that the Government had lost the personal details of 25 million men, women and children. The Prime Minister says that he "profoundly" regrets what has happened, but that is not much consolation to the millions of families who have been left to follow the Chancellor's advice to check their bank statements. According to a written answer given just three weeks ago, there were 2,111 security breaches by HMRC last year alone. Reports today suggest that at least two further CDs are missing. How can the Prime Minister deny that the fiasco is anything but the result of systemic failure? Can we therefore have a debate in Government time on the systemic failure in HMRC—a department set up by the Prime Minister?
	In his statement on Tuesday, the Chancellor said that the reason he had not told the House immediately was that he needed to put appropriate safeguards in place. He said that
	"the banks were adamant that they wanted as much time as possible to prepare for this announcement."—[ Official Report, 20 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 1102.]
	However, the British Bankers Association has said:
	"The BBA did not ask for any more time...None of our members asked for any extra time."
	That directly contradicts what the Chancellor told hon. Members. He must come to the House and set the record straight. The Chancellor also said repeatedly that the decisions were taken by junior officials. However, we know that it was a senior business manager who took the decision to put the information on to the discs and that that was done with the knowledge of the director of HMRC, process owner for tax credits and child benefits. Yet another thing that the Chancellor told the House has been contradicted, so will he come to the House to make an urgent statement and tell us the true version of events?
	The Northern Rock fiasco and the HMRC scandal tell us everything that we need to know about the Government: they are incompetent, insincere and in deep trouble. Is it not time that somebody just got a grip?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady raised the matter of Heathrow. The point is that there is a process of consultation. If she wants to put her views into the consultation on behalf of her constituents, I suggest that she does so. A written ministerial statement has been made to the House on the subject of the consultation. When conclusions are reached as a result of hearing from all those who put in their views to the consultation, including hon. Members, and when there are firm proposals for action, no doubt the Secretary of State for Transport will bring those matters to the House. Hon. Members will know the difference between launching a consultation and having firm proposals. When there are firm proposals, they must be brought to the House for announcement.
	The right hon. Lady made a number of points about Northern Rock and about Revenue and Customs. Of course, when sudden problems arise the duty of the Government is clear. First, it is to ensure that individuals are protected from any personal damage or any potential problems. Secondly, our duty is to ensure that there is an investigation to discover what actually happened and why. I do not intend to pre-empt any of those investigations by answering the questions that are subject to them. Thirdly, it is our duty to take steps to ensure that those problems do not happen again. That is the duty of the Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is doing exactly that.

Harriet Harman: Members will know that, together with the Information Commissioner, Mark Walport is looking into the question of data security in both the public and private sectors. No doubt a report will be brought before this House at the appropriate time, when further questions can be asked.

Justine Greening: May we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on Heathrow expansion? My constituents have no information in the consultation document launched today that they trust and on which to base their decisions on what to say in response to that consultation. I have been trying for five months to get hold of the detailed environmental analysis that BAA has had and that the Department for Transport has been modelling to. Why are the Government unwilling to be accountable in any way whatsoever to the people whom they exist to serve?

Harriet Harman: I will draw my hon. Friend's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It is important that we do all we can to prevent thrombosis and to improve the treatment of it, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work of his all-party group.

Dawn Butler: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that we are approaching the end of the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade legislation, and there has been plenty of talk in the House about having an annual remembrance day for slavery, in line with the holocaust memorial day. Will she inform the House whether there is need for further debate, or are we in agreement that that should take place?

Edward Davey: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we can support primary care trusts such as Kingston PCT that are struggling with large, historical debts when, as we have heard today, the national health service as a whole is recording a large surplus? How can it make sense for the health service in some parts of the country to experience painful cuts when relatively small one-off debt write-offs, or even a minor rescheduling of debt repayments, can be easily afforded?

Harriet Harman: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West well and I hope that he makes a speedy return to this House. I join my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) in paying tribute to all our armed services who bravely put their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan. As he will know—the Prime Minister has spoken about this in the House—the question of recognition and the awarding of medals falls to the armed services, and they make proposals to the Ministry of Defence. Any action will then be reported to this House.

Graham Stuart: Since the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ordered the closure of at least 2,500 post offices in May, the details of which post offices are targeted have been published. There is cross-party concern, as we have seen today, about the impact of that closure programme introduced by the Government and ordered on the Post Office's much-maligned chief executive. May we have an urgent debate so that we can discuss the impact on areas, such as Grovehill road in Beverley which serves the lowest income side of Beverley and is a very busy post office?

Alan Johnson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the publication of the national framework for responding to an influenza pandemic and to provide the House with an update on the progress we have made to improve the UK's ability to respond to a pandemic. I will cover overall public health strategy and our approach to the use of clinical countermeasures, such as antivirals and antibiotics.
	Influenza pandemics have occurred every 30 to 40 years in the previous century. The last pandemic, in 1968-69, resulted in 80,000 additional deaths in the UK. The possibility of a new pandemic is one of the most severe risks currently facing the UK. Our planning assumptions are that 25 to 50 per cent. of the population may become ill and that, in accordance with previous analysis, between 0.4 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. of those affected could die.
	In order that the country is prepared for the next pandemic, whenever it occurs, I am today publishing a new national framework. It builds upon and supersedes the UK influenza pandemic contingency plan published in October 2005, expanding it to cover a more comprehensive range of impacts and responses.
	The draft national framework was issued for public discussion in March of this year. This final version reflects a number of issues raised during the period for public discussion and takes account of the practical lessons identified from the national simulation exercise for an outbreak of pandemic flu, Operation Winter Willow, which took place earlier this year.
	In order that we are as prepared as possible, the framework suggests that more emphasis needs to be placed on planning at the upper ends of possible clinical attack and complication rates. Although the pandemics during the last century resulted in attack rates at or around 25 per cent., it is important that we consider a higher "reasonable worst case" scenario to ensure that our arrangements are robust and resilient.
	The framework also includes the planning assumptions that describe the Government's likely position on such issues as school closures, and advice on social gatherings and the use of public places. The national framework will help organisations across government and in the private and public sector to work together to prepare pandemic plans that can cope with a reasonable worst case scenario.
	The framework is supported by a range of guidance. We are publishing an ethical framework for policy and planning, guidance on the provision of health care in a community setting and guidance to assist acute hospitals, social care services and ambulance services in their planning. We are also issuing for public discussion draft guidance on the following: death and cremation certification, proposing legal and other changes in the event of a pandemic; mental health services, assisting mental health trusts in developing their plans; surge capacity, managing the prioritisation of health services and patients at the peak of any pandemic; and NHS human resources guidance, dealing with the work force issues that may arise.
	We are also launching a consultation on possible amendments to medicines and related legislation for use during an influenza pandemic. These aim to support the mass distribution of medicines and the maintenance of access to routine medicines at a time when front-line health care professionals will be focused on the most seriously ill. I have allocated additional funding of £10 million this year to assist the NHS in developing these plans. I expect every NHS organisation to have robust plans in place.
	In the event of a pandemic there will naturally be a great deal of public concern. Our planning assumption is that we will rely on voluntary compliance with national advice during that period. However, should it be necessary to invoke emergency measures, we are taking public health powers in the forthcoming Health and Social Care Bill that could be considered in the event of a pandemic.
	The development of the national framework and our response to pandemic influenza is grounded in the most up-to-date scientific evidence. The Department of Health's scientific advisory group on pandemic influenza takes into account evidence from the UK and across the world. Under its auspices, independently peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in August 2007, dealing with the clinical countermeasures and the risk of a pandemic originating from an H5N1 virus.
	It is clear from the science that good, basic hygiene measures must be at the heart of our response. Using a tissue when coughing and sneezing, disposing of it carefully and washing hands often will reduce the spread of influenza, as well as of common coughs and colds. The latest public health campaign, "Catch, it, Bin it, Kill it", is being launched to raise awareness of the importance of good respiratory and hand hygiene. It builds on the success of earlier campaigns.
	Science has also informed our strategic approach towards stockpiling the clinical countermeasures we will need to fight a pandemic. The countermeasures will enable us to treat the symptoms of pandemic influenza, to reduce the number of complications and deaths and to reduce the spread of the virus.
	To make sure that the UK has access to a pandemic vaccine I have signed advanced supply agreements with GlaxoSmithKline and Baxter to deliver enough vaccine to cover the entire population. It should be the most effective vaccine against the pandemic virus. Those agreements mean that we are among the first countries to have contracts in place, and we will have a guaranteed supply of vaccine at a time when there will be significant international demand. Delivery of the vaccine is not immediate, however, as it can take a few months to develop an effective vaccine once the virus causing pandemic flu has been identified. It is important, therefore, that we obtain additional countermeasures.
	Antiviral medicines are key to our response. If they are administered quickly to all patients with symptoms, they can reduce the duration of the disease and the risk of complications. To make sure that the UK has enough of the most common antiviral, Tamiflu, we have created a stockpile to treat a quarter of the population, assuming the rate of clinical attack seen in previous pandemics and putting us on a par with measures taken in countries such as Germany and the US.
	I can tell the House today that the Government are planning to double the stock of antivirals, to cover at least half the population. We will continue to keep the level of stock under review in light of the scientific evidence, as we develop our business case.
	The World Health Organisation has recommended that, in the event of a pandemic, antibiotics will be needed to prevent and treat the secondary bacterial infections that are likely to be the main cause of complications and deaths. Recommendations for the use of antibiotics are included in clinical management guidelines published recently by two medical journals,  Thorax and the  Journal of Infection.
	The Government plan to procure 14.7 million treatment courses of antibiotics to treat and prevent the complications arising from pandemic flu. That stockpile will enable us to give antibiotics to vulnerable symptomatic flu patients, such as those with chronic conditions and the elderly, in advance of the development of secondary complications, and to treat others in the community if they develop complications. The antibiotics will also be used in hospitals to treat the sickest patients and may reduce the length of hospitalisation. The procurement of both antivirals and antibiotics will be subject to emerging scientific evidence and to normal commercial procurement procedures to ensure that we purchase those products at the best price, and achieve value for money for the taxpayer.
	Maintaining the resilience of the NHS and social care will be critical. We must ensure that essential NHS and social care workers on the front line, caring for people with influenza, are protected. The World Health Organisation advises that health workers should wear face masks when caring for patients with influenza and use disposable respirators when carrying out clinical procedures likely to generate fine droplets from infected patients. The Government plan to purchase about 34 million disposable respirators and about 350 million surgical face masks for the use of health and social care workers in the event of a pandemic.
	Although the available medical evidence does not support the use of face masks in all settings, I recognise that people may want to have access to face masks for their personal use. The Government will explore the approach that retailers are planning to adopt when stocking face masks for sale to the public.
	Pre-pandemic vaccine is the only clinical countermeasure that can be used before the onset of the pandemic, but its success will depend on how much protection it gives against the actual pandemic virus, which is, of course, unknown until it strikes. The Government have a stockpile of 3.3 million doses of H5N1 pre-pandemic vaccine for health care workers. Its purchase in 2006 was an important step, designed primarily to support the health care response to the pandemic. The science underpinning the further development and potential use of pre-pandemic vaccine is cutting-edge and has just been reviewed by UK and international experts. We are actively considering their findings and the implications for our policy to inform future decisions and I will update the House on any developments.
	The preparedness strategy for pandemic influenza represents a significant investment. In assessing the options, we will ensure that value for money is balanced with the need to be certain that the UK is properly prepared. The significant progress we have made in protecting the UK has been recognised internationally, and we continue to work closely with the World Health Organisation. Dr. David Heymann, the assistant director general for health security and environment at the WHO, said this week:
	"The UK is still in the vanguard of countries worldwide in preparing for a pandemic, and is also one of the leading global players in addressing the cross-sectoral issues in their planning."
	I can also announce that we have pledged a further £2 million to support the global pandemic influenza action plan to increase vaccine supply to help develop capacity to secure vaccine supplies for the developing world.
	Today's publication of the national framework and the ongoing work to develop our preparedness strategy reflect the importance the Government attach to responding to the risk of an influenza pandemic for the UK. This is not an issue for partisan politics, and I am grateful for the constructive engagement of the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). To that end, I will arrange for them to meet the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), and key officials to discuss our plans in more detail.
	I commend the statement to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement and for the opportunity briefly to look at the national framework document published today. Although originally Ministers said that it would be published last January, I welcome its publication and the further measures that the Secretary of State announced, including the acquisition of a stockpile of face masks. He will recall that it is just over two years since we first asked his predecessor to do that. It has taken that long, but we hope the stockpile will be in place before any threatened pandemic eventuates.
	I welcome, too, the Secretary of State's announcement of £10 million for additional support for NHS planning. It is important that the work be done and at present primary care trusts cannot allocate additional resources for it. The £2 million for the World Health Organisation is also welcome.
	On finance, the Scottish Executive made it clear in a recent document that this year they expect to spend £5 million on pandemic preparations. From that, I deduce that the Secretary of State in England is probably expecting to spend about £50 million this year. Will he confirm that?
	I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the constructive engagement that began under his predecessor. I look forward to further discussions. He has responded today to some of the concerns I raised in our correspondence and I am grateful for that. None the less, I have a few specific questions.
	The Secretary of State made it clear that he is responding to scientific advice from the Department's scientific advisory group. He will be aware that the group looked at one model whose effect would have been such that even if one of the component interventions was ineffective it would none the less be possible to meet the targeted strategy, but the group noted that
	"the impact of this combination is such that only localised outbreaks of seasonal flu proportions would be expected with all interventions effective".
	The scientific advisory group is modelling for an extremely effective countermeasures strategy, but within that there is not just a 50 per cent. antiviral stockpile, but a 75 per cent. antiviral stockpile. Although the Secretary of State says that he is not at the moment making any proposal for a pre-pandemic vaccine, the countermeasures contemplated in that model by the scientific advisory group include a 100 per cent. pre-pandemic vaccination. So will he undertake to consider in those discussions whether that is a viable model to allow further countermeasures to be put in place?
	On a pre-pandemic vaccine, the 3.3 million doses of H5N1 that we have in hand were bought not only for possible use with health care workers, but for research. The Secretary of State knows that he cannot explain why they have not been used for any research, but research into H5N1, other vaccines and, indeed, vaccine technology is a vital part of our long-term preparations. Even if a pandemic does not occur in the next year or two or three—if it is 10 years hence—the efforts that we take now to improve vaccine technology so that we have cell-based or even DNA vaccines to respond much more quickly to a pandemic could be something for which we will be extraordinarily grateful in future.
	The Secretary of State is still buying antivirals on the basis of treatment only. Will he undertake further to consider prophylaxis, particularly household prophylaxis, for antivirals and the acquisition of a stockpile for that purpose? Will he tell the House whether he has considered the threat of resistance developing to Tamiflu and whether he contemplates any subsidiary stockpile of Relenza, for example, for that purpose?
	The framework document is very limited in its response on critical care beds. It is quite clear from work done by the Intensive Care Society two years ago that our critical care capacity will be overwhelmed in the event of a pandemic. It called for a doubling or a tripling of critical care capacity. What steps has the Secretary of State already put in place to expand critical care?
	On school closures, the framework still pretty much says, "We'll see where we get to, and then the Government will issue advice." Did not Operation Winter Willow, if it was realistic, suggest that the Government will not be in a position to decide whether schools close in a severe pandemic? Parents will keep their children at home. Schools will close. Large numbers of health care workers and others will be at home, looking after their children. We must have a strategy in place that understands human behaviour in circumstances where the pandemic is severe.
	Are the Government considering following the example set by the American Government of having not only WHO alert status, but their own view of the relative severity of a pandemic to guide the selection of countermeasures? It is certainly true that schools in America have already sent guidance to parents about what would happen at their school in the event of a pandemic.
	I am sure that what the Secretary of State said about the WHO and developing countries is very welcome, but he will know, and the House should understand, that if there is a pandemic with a high case fatality rate and as many millions of people in developing countries are immune-compromised as a result of HIV/AIDS, the potential threat worldwide is dramatic. So it is increasingly important that, for example, the Department for International Development and the Department of Health jointly work on trying to support contingency planning and countermeasures in some of those developing countries.
	People often say, "We had BSE. We had SARS. We've had one scare after another. Isn't this just another scare?" Frankly, it has never been my view, as the Secretary of State knows, that this is just another scare. We had three pandemics in the last century. The characteristics of this one, with H5N1 persisting in the bird population alongside large numbers of humans, are probably more like those of 1918. The case fatality rate in 1918 was 2.5 per cent. This is a severe pandemic. It might not happen in the next few years, but it will happen at some point. Therefore, the measures that we take, as an insurance premium, remain modest in relation to the dreadful consequences of suffering from a pandemic on that scale, without those countermeasures being in place.
	I have no doubt that Britain remains among those who are best equipped and have some of the best planning in place, but so we should be. I hope that we will be an exemplar to other countries, both in how we respond here to the pandemic and in how we support others, particularly the least developed countries.

Alan Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach to the issue. He mentioned H5N1 in Norfolk. I know that he knows the medical advice, but it is probably as well if I read into the record the fact that H5N1 is predominantly an infectious disease of birds and that there is very little evidence of widespread human infection thus far, just as there is very little evidence of the kind of easy person-to-person transmission required to cause a human flu pandemic. However, H5N1 is a potential seedbed for the emergence of such a virus, which is why poultry workers in his constituency have been given the vaccine for H5N1 and offered regular seasonal flu jabs.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the NHS will be able to cope. Yes, we are sure that it will. It will be able to cope much better for having gone through the national simulation project, Winter Willow, earlier in the year. We keep the situation constantly under review. The NHS showed its capacity to respond in relation to events such as the floods in Gloucester and my area recently. The situation, once the pandemic strikes, will of course be on a far bigger scale. However, all the evidence is that the NHS is ready to step up to the mark in these situations.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about effective action across the EU. He is right that there is a necessity for that. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, hosted a conference in July of other European member states, and there was a discussion through the WHO in Washington recently, which included most European Union member states. We are all interdependent in the European Union, which is an important reason why the EU can give a focus to dealing with a pandemic. If the EU did not exist, we could not have that kind of cross-country co-operation.
	The co-ordination in this country would take place through Cobra, chaired by the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman asked about co-ordination with public agencies. Gold command was another example of public agencies working together very well, both in terms of the security threat and the recent floods. I have absolutely no doubt that public agencies will be able to cope in the event of a flu pandemic.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked when we should have the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the experts and scientists. That should take place as soon as possible. I was talking to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire earlier. Perhaps we should organise a Hansard Society debate on the issue so that we can have all the available experts participating, as well as having important debates in the Chamber.

Howard Stoate: I thank the Secretary of State for an excellent statement. I am sure that the entire country will be pleased to hear that not only is Britain more prepared than any other country in Europe, but we are more prepared than we ever have been. The most effective and likely way of dealing with pandemic flu is the development of an effective vaccine. There are two problems with that. First, we have to develop the vaccine when we have the virus, and therefore we cannot do it yet. The second big problem is capacity for production. The biggest bottleneck we have is that, when there is a vaccine available, it will take some time to produce enough doses. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with vaccine manufacturers to ensure that there is enough mothballed capacity in the vaccine manufacturing industry in Europe and across the world, to ensure that we get enough doses quickly enough when the vaccine is developed?

Phil Woolas: Not off the top of my head, but I can send that information to the right hon. Gentleman. We in the Department take very seriously our role as an exemplar of reducing carbon emissions. Clearly, if we are trying to influence public opinion, we must set a good example. Parliament and not least the right hon. Gentleman will make sure that we do. I thank him for that intervention.
	It is important to avoid a gap between the first and second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol. For that reason, we need to secure agreement by the end of 2009. Apart from the need to avoid such a gap, it is important that Parliaments and legislatures have time to scrutinise agreements, and perhaps even more important that businesses and organisations, particularly the energy industry, have time to put their policies into place.
	I draw the attention of the House to the statement that we published on Monday setting out the approach that the Government believe should underpin a post-2012 framework for international action. There are four key principles. First, the post-2012 regime must fit the scale of the challenge. To avoid the dangerous impacts of climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak within 10 to 15 years and fall by at least 50 per cent. by 2050.
	Secondly, the agreement must be fully effective, involving all countries with significant emissions. For that to be real, the Government believe that a truly global carbon market needs to develop, because putting a price on carbon is essential to incentivise new investment in energy efficiency and clean energy sources, not just for the developed world but for the developing world as well.
	The third principle is that of fairness. Developed countries such as ours have the greatest responsibility and the greatest capacity to reduce emissions. The larger emerging economies, however, also need to adopt new commitments that reflect their growth and pace of progress, ensuring that their future prosperity goes hand in hand with environmentally and economically sustainable development. Fairness also demands that richer countries play their part to support developing countries as they make the transition to clean energy technologies.
	The fourth principle is that a post-2012 agreement must be comprehensive, addressing emissions from energy at the same time as controlling emissions from land use and, as I said to the Forestry Commission yesterday, deforestation.

David Kidney: With reference to fairness between the developed world and the developing world, will my hon. Friend say a little about the Government's attitude towards the transfer of know-how, technology and funding from the developed to developing world without opening up a loophole in a future binding agreement, so that we do not all buy credits in other parts of the world for schemes that should have been undertaken by another route anyway, as part of meeting our own obligation?

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend identifies a crucial point. Our responsibility to the developing world requires a binding commitment on ourselves and other developed countries in agreement to contribute—I was about to say more than our fair share, but it is not more than our fair share because, historically, we have that responsibility. Carbon markets and offsetting can help the technological transfer that my hon. Friend calls for. It is crucial that we avoid the outcome that my hon. Friend is concerned about.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman raises a point that is central to the debate. What lies behind his question are the crucial debates and decisions about the starting point, as different countries are on different trajectories. That makes his first point even more important. A carbon market must be based on robust science.

Gregory Barker: That is a good point with which I am happy to agree. There has been some good work on smart meters, which we have already pledged to roll out: the report chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) focused on the role of smart meters.

Gregory Barker: On the international stage, where rhetoric is at a premium, the Government have done well, and I certainly pay tribute to the work of Tony Blair. However, we have a real problem in respect of our domestic performance: we are simply not matching the international rhetoric with delivery at home.
	I have a few examples of the failure of Government rhetoric. This year, they dropped their own commitment, made in three consecutive manifestos, to cut British carbon emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010, and replaced it with a target of 15 per cent.  The Guardian reports today that the Government have ordered a U-turn on the Merton rule, having caved in to the House Builders Federation. The Government have chronically underfunded and are now scrapping the farce that is the low-carbon buildings programme, causing huge problems for the microgeneration industry. They have underspent, cut and then redirected budget commitments for energy efficiency and failed to support plans to build the world's first carbon capture and storage power station in Peterhead, Scotland, opting instead for yet another iterative round of consultation and a competition, instead of just getting on with it. They were caught red-handed trying to water down Britain's commitment to the EU renewable energy target of 20 per cent. by 2020.
	Although the Prime Minister acknowledged the scale of the challenge that we face, his speech was remarkably short on solutions proportionate to the task. We had already heard much of what was announced. The Government had already committed to end fuel poverty, phase out low-energy light bulbs, build zero-carbon homes from 2016 and launch a competition to build a commercial carbon capture and storage project in Britain. The most groundbreaking proposal on Monday may have been the Prime Minister's move to eliminate plastic shopping bags, but even that is to go to a forum for discussion before anything is done. Reluctance, reannouncements, rehashing and repetition are, sadly, all too familiar.
	People are asking where the real vision and action are. If we judge the Government's performance this year by deeds and not words, a decidedly mixed and unambitious picture emerges. I ask the House to keep in mind the following facts: despite all the talk, UK carbon emissions are still higher today than when the Labour Government took office 10 years ago; the downward trajectory is barely noticeable. This morning, perhaps mindful of the irony of the fact that we were to have this debate, the Government snuck out a written statement announcing that they intend to expand massively Heathrow airport, without so much as a mention of climate change or carbon emissions in the consultation process. The Bali conference is only weeks away, and Britain will no longer be visiting in a position of global leadership on climate change.

Gregory Barker: Those are wise words. We will draw on the work of my right hon. Friend's Committee in the House of Lords and, in the new year, in the Commons.
	We firmly believe that the committee must be independent and that independent science must drive its recommendations. It is not there to second guess any of the Government's political priorities, whatever colour the Government of the day may be. There is much work to do on the Bill, but we look forward, in a constructive spirit, to enhancing and strengthening it in the coming weeks to turn it into the framework for dynamic industrial change that it has the potential to be.
	The world stands on the cusp of a new low-carbon age. Britain has too much potential to do anything other than help to lead the way forward. However, that requires a Government with ambition, vision, ideas and the people to come together to provide that leadership.

Colin Challen: I have sat in this Chamber on many occasions thinking that time was going backwards, and today that belief was confirmed. The clock has gone backwards several times already; I am sure that can be reviewed.
	I welcome the debate because it is very timely, given that the week-long conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will take place next week, here in Westminster. Parliamentarians from all over the Commonwealth will attend, and I very much look forward to it. I also look forward to being in Bali for at least the first week of the conference. I hope to try to influence things, but I probably have no great chance of success. It will be a very difficult conference—perhaps somewhat more difficult than a win for an English side against Croatia. At least the England team will get another chance; we will not have a second chance after Bali. There may well be a penalty shoot-out later on, but we will have to wait and see.
	I very much welcome the Government's statement on their principles for approaching Bali, and the credence we can give to the principles is based on the Government's leadership. There might be some domestic problems—we all know about those—but in the international arena the UK has led the debate on climate change. The first principle states that the post-2012 regime must meet the scale of the challenge. That is absolutely correct. There cannot be any deviation from that principle at all. It is good to remind ourselves how big the challenge is. We often say that we have 10 or 15 years before global emissions peak and then drop. I would argue that we have already passed that peak.
	Over the past 650,000 years, the highest level of carbon alone in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million, and now that figure stands at 384 parts per million. Carbon equivalent gases are perhaps over 430 parts per million now. It is obvious to me that we are well into uncharted territory already. We do not have a window of opportunity to see how much further we can test the system. I would not accept anyone saying that we have another 10 or 15 years to sort the problem out. We do not.

Colin Challen: I absolutely agree with that. There are two further points. We should also bear it in mind that if we want them to grow, we will have to allow them a degree of increase in their carbon emissions. We allowed ourselves that luxury. I hope that it would not be on the same scale as ours, but the only way to ensure that is to make our cuts even deeper. We also need technology transfer mechanisms. One of the possibilities that we ought to consider is the way in which the World Bank is funding fossil fuel developments. Oil companies, with oil priced at nearly $100 a barrel, are making unprecedented profits. That does not make sense.
	To return to the target, and the stabilisation greenhouse gases, a new element now has to be factored in. In the past, we largely concentrated on anthropogenic emissions, which reflects the science since about 1994. Recently, and this idea is now included in the Hadley Centre's future work programme, we have had to consider the coupling of greenhouse emissions from man-made sources and those coming from positive feedbacks into the system, which are now emerging as a major contributor. We have multiplied the impact of positive feedbacks, and if we get beyond a tipping point, there might be nothing we can do to rein in those feedbacks. That modelling is now being used more widely, including by the intergovernmental panel on climate change, even though it was buried deeply within its report. If we consider that factor, I hope that we will note that our targets have to be much higher—probably beyond the 80 per cent. that has already been mentioned this afternoon. That is a worrying development, but we have to take it into account if we are to achieve the first principle set out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has considered what our accepted share of global emissions might mean for us. It has shown that to have a 30 per cent. chance of avoiding dangerous climate change, the UK's 50-year budget between 2000 and 2050 has to be fixed at about 4.8 gigatonnes of CO2. It also has shown that between 2000 and 2006, the UK emitted 1.2 gigatonnes of CO2, so we have already used one quarter of the budget available to us, based on our current understanding of what must be done. That shows the severity of the situation. Based on those figures, to have a 30 per cent. chance of avoiding dangerous climate change, the cuts in our emissions we need to insist on after 2012 could be as much as 9 per cent. per annum. That goes well beyond anything anyone has asked for before.
	I want to examine one of the other principles to which the Government have alluded in their statement, which is the role of markets. Markets are seen as the greatest mechanism to deliver cost-effective reductions in carbon emissions, and we have to focus hard on how successful they will be, and on whether we should not put too much faith in them. It is quite right that low-cost options should be explored first—they are the low-hanging fruit, and the biggest reductions can come that way—but the history of the markets to date shows a great deal of volatility in prices for carbon. It is now back at over €20 in the emission trading scheme, having gone down to zero at one point.
	There is not a great deal of long-term investment opportunity for the investment community if it cannot see how the future will pan out for the price of carbon. If we are always going to focus on the cheapest price of carbon, we will price out some of the long-term, perhaps more expensive, things that we need to do—alternative energy systems that are quite expensive to get up and running. We need to recognise what Stern said about carbon pricing: we cannot rely on markets alone to set the price. We have to do a range of other things to ensure that we do the right thing. To a great extent, we will need renewable technologies.
	I have already mentioned the role of the World Bank. It needs to stop funding fossil fuels immediately, and we should invest more heavily in renewables. We should follow the example of Germany and examine successful schemes, such as the feed-in tariff. There are arguments about the level at which it can be applied, but we ought to be open to such ideas, and not overly defensive about measures we have in place already. Those are working to a certain extent, but if we compare the way in which the German feed-in tariff works with the way in which the renewables obligation works, we find that the feed-in tariff delivers renewable electricity about 2 euro cents cheaper per kilowatt-hour than our own system. We should be open to new ideas. It would be an example of leadership in Bali to say that we are not going to hunker down and be protective about what we have done. We have to be open and co-operative if the Bali process is going to work.
	Finally, I would like to reiterate my proposal that in the two-year period before the COP 15 in Copenhagen, when I hope the deal will be ready to sign, the UK should have some sort of national, Government-sponsored convention on the climate change framework, so that we can involve civil society, non-governmental organisations, business and everyone else with an open mind, just as we did at the Exeter science conference, to include far more people in the debate.

Martin Horwood: I am pleased by the Minister's response. Al Gore and other climate change campaigners have achieved a remarkable turnaround in American public opinion, but the oil man in the White House still has his head in the sand and his boots in the air. The British Government and the EU need to apply whatever pressure they can to ensure that the Lieberman-Warner Bill is passed.
	The Lieberman-Warner Bill tackles an question that I have asked several times in this House and that also appears in the Stern report. I have never heard an adequate reply from Ministers. What can be done about those countries that do not or will not put a cost on carbon in their economies and seek a short-term competitive advantage in mobile industries, such as the aluminium industry? We might see a flight from stricter carbon regimes, thereby making the situation worse in such industries rather than better.
	The Lieberman-Warner Bill suggests that imports from countries without an emissions cap should be subject to compulsory purchase of admissions permits. Stern considered a similar approach. What is the Government's preferred option? That would clearly form a part of the discussions on the international regime that we need after 2012, which must involve the World Trade Organisation, but we need a clear position.
	I suspect that that might be another example of the Government not thinking things through. If it is, it pales into insignificance beside the worst example of the Government's left hand not knowing what their right hand is doing—aviation. Transport is the only sector of the economy in which emissions seem set to keep rising, and aviation is by far the worst offender per mile. It has more than doubled its emissions since 1990. Richard Branson is earnestly and sincerely seeking a sustainable biofuel for use in aeroplanes, but even he is not holding his breath. In the absence of some miracle "get out of jail free" card, we have to contain the growth in aviation. The fact that the Government support a third runway at Heathrow and are set to allow 60,000 more flights a year on the existing runways undermines their credibility on climate change. Serge Lourie, leader of Richmond upon Thames council and spokesman for the 2M group, which represents some 2 million London residents, has said:
	"The Government is claiming that this will be a public consultation but it has already made up its mind that Heathrow capacity will almost double."
	He went on to say that that would be "devastating". In terms of carbon emissions, he is quite right.
	Excuses are already being made for the expansion of Heathrow. I was sad to read the editorial in  The Times today that said that opponents of the third runway were
	"wildly exaggerating the likely impact."
	It went on to say:
	"Nor can the argument about climate change be harnessed to any anti-Heathrow campaign without also being applied to all airports across Europe."
	Let me make it clear. I oppose extra runways at Heathrow, Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. This has to be a global and European campaign.

Martin Horwood: Constraining carbon emissions from aviation is not the same as constraining the number of people who fly. If we were to have an efficient regime whereby more people flew in full flights, and if we were to shift taxation on to flights rather than people, we could achieve both those things. Of course, we need to work at a European level. I want the Minister to confirm that he is working with colleagues across the EU to consider constraining aviation's growth rather than its massive expansion.

Martin Horwood: I absolutely agree. The example of Eurostar, which has reduced the number of cross-channel flights, is relevant. It is important that we have a joined-up transport strategy. For example, if we supported the high-speed rail link to Scotland, we could cut domestic flights. We could then encourage an international rail network, which would cut the use of aviation.
	The Government have done well to champion the cause of climate change internationally and to introduce a Climate Change Bill at last. However, DEFRA needs to stop congratulating itself so much and to start working with other Ministers to ensure that all of Government work just as hard to tackle climate change.

David Kidney: That is a poor point. The Prime Minister runs the country and determines every aspect of our life. He made many decisions on climate change before he made his speech last Monday.
	Let me get on with the serious issues under consideration. The Prime Minister's second answer was that our global leadership on the matter will continue. His third answer, which followed another whispering campaign, was that we will play our full part in meeting the targets set by the EU spring Council. We should remember the ambition of the three targets of 20 per cent. by the spring Council—20 per cent. increased energy efficiency, 20 per cent. of total energy from renewable energy sources and a 20 per cent. cut in carbon emissions, all of which are to be achieved by 2020. If we link those targets to our Climate Change Bill and the legally binding target to cut carbon emissions, we can see what a huge challenge we face.
	The Prime Minister has talked about "a fourth technological revolution." What kind of technologies are we talking about? What will change in our lives because of those changes? We will demand greater efficiencies in existing processes. We will need technologies that allow different processes, particularly ones that do away with carbon, so we can expect a great expansion in renewable energy industries. We will need to manage raw materials more efficiently and to make a meaningful use of the imperative "reduce, reuse and recycle" at every turn. We will need to manage finite natural resources, including water, more efficiently.
	In order to reach the low-carbon global economy that we need, we will all have to embrace sustainable development in every aspect of our lives—in our home lives, our working lives and our travel arrangements. That massive change allows us to predict a massive expansion of new sustainable development technologies that will start immediately. However, if we do nothing about it the constraint will be that the skills will not be available.
	Schott UK in my constituency, a company that sells solar technologies, finds that the greatest restriction on its ability to improve its sales is to get people who can install solar panels at businesses and homes.

David Kidney: My hon. Friend anticipates the direction in which I am heading and I hope to give him some solutions shortly.
	Let us consider some of the skills that will be needed for invention, design, manufacture, installation, financing and sales and repairs and maintenance. In a few years, a much larger proportion of our work force will need such skills. Let us remember the drivers for putting those technologies in place. In the Prime Minister's speech on Monday, he referred to the Climate Change Bill setting five-year budgets for three Budget periods at a time—a 15-year period of assurance for those who make the decisions to invest in the right technologies. The Energy Bill will reform the renewables obligation to introduce new technologies, including—in the jargon of the consultation on the renewables obligation—the emerging technologies. The Planning Reform Bill will speed up infrastructure projects and the Housing and Regeneration Bill will pave the way for 3 million new homes. Let us not forget the Olympics. The drivers for the big surge in skills demand are already in place, and the Prime Minister understands that.

David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman invites me down a side route. I shall try to reply to his question briefly. Much of the answer lies in our country's history compared with that of Germany. We have taken the renewables obligation route rather than that of the feed-in tariff ever since the non-fossil fuel obligation. We should reconsider feed-in tariffs, especially with smart meters and microgeneration, to ensure that we get much more decentralised power in this country. I believe that the renewables obligation is a reasonable mechanism. The hon. Gentleman asked why it has failed. I believe that the reason is an inefficient planning system—200 or so wind farms are currently stuck in the planning system. There are other obstacles such as connecting systems to the national grid. We must remove them as soon as possible.
	In the Prime Minister's speech on Monday, he recognised the need for skills and spoke about the train to gain programme and the need to expand the number of apprenticeship places in this country. He also called for a national skills academy for environmental industries. He reminded us that, even today, the environmental industries in this country are worth £25 billion to our economy and employ 400,000 people. The Prime Minister and I perceive the export opportunities for British technologies in that.
	The solution to fulfilling the skills need—my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) will pay especial attention now—is a network throughout the country of sustainable development technologies centres. We need places where we can see the technologies that we are discussing. Members of the public and business representatives could visit them to see what the future holds, and students and children would go there as part of the sustainable development component of their education. Members of the work force would visit those places to acquire the skills that they need—that is crucial.
	I am not making some hypothetical suggestion to the Minister; realising such a proposal is in our grasp. I am one of the promoters of the first such centre, which is at the Rodbaston college of further education near Penkridge in my constituency. We have money from the Learning and Skills Council and the regional development agency to conduct a feasibility study to show that the crucial demand for skills means that the proposal stacks up financially.
	I anticipate colleges, universities, manufacturers, RDAs and local councils throughout the country wanting centres that provide such a range of services. I would like people to have the bricks and mortar and the technologies before their eyes to see that the technologies work and can be implemented now in this country, and to have hands-on opportunities to train for skills that are needed to operate those technologies. That should happen as soon as possible.

John Gummer: I hope that the Minister acknowledges that I am the first to congratulate the Government when they are doing the right thing and that I press them because we have a common desire to win the battles that we are considering. When I was Secretary of State for the Environment, I would have benefited from a similar approach from Labour Members. If they had been tougher and had a more advanced programme, I could have got more out of my Cabinet colleagues because they would have pressed me hard. I do not, therefore, want to let the Minister down when I press him.
	Although I welcome the Prime Minister's apparent acceptance of a target higher than 60 per cent. by 2050, it is pretty easy for politicians to set targets for dates long after they are active. We need targets for now and we need to be kept to them. That is as important for Oppositions as it is for Governments. Annual targets are important because they keep us under control. If we have annual targets, we cannot complain that the Government are doing something unpopular without presenting a sensible alternative. Annual targets are good for keeping Oppositions up to the mark. However, they are crucial for Governments.
	That is why the organisation of the Committee that will consider climate change is also crucial. It should begin its work immediately, be independent and have the majority of its members appointed by the Royal Society, not the Government. The chairman should be appointed according to the clear proposition that we presented in the all-party early-day motion about the qualities that are necessary for that post if the Committee is not to be perceived as the Government's patsy. Genuine steps can be taken now.
	The Government must take practical and direct steps. It does not help when some of their supporters talk about whispering campaigns. Going back on our commitments in the European Union was not a whispering campaign, but a campaign by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, led by Sir Digby Jones. He should never have been taken into Government because his record on environmental matters is appalling. To choose him as an example of business was a peculiar step.
	It is worrying that the Government do not take seriously the problems as they arise. I have genuine sympathy with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). Of course, the Liberal Democrats need to adopt our view of getting an independent organisation to consider the figure. That would enable them to settle their problems. Some say that we should have a zero carbon figure and others say that it should be 80 per cent.

John Gummer: I will because I tempted him.

John Gummer: No; I have got another thing to say that will annoy the hon. Gentleman even more. I remember what the Liberal Democrats did on taxation on domestic fuel. They were in favour of it until there was a by-election, when they stopped being in favour of it in order to win the by-election.  [Interruption.] I shall not give way and I had better continue, as you were clear about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Let me deal with aviation. Someone who flies at the back of the plane from London to Sydney and back again uses as much carbon as someone who uses 700,000 plastic bags. But tackling plastic bags is an easy thing to do; dealing with aviation is difficult. So, I bothered to get hold of the Government's document on aviation, which the Secretary of State for Transport quite unaccountably and unacceptably did not come to present in the House. Let us look at this document. It has a covering note, which does not talk about climate change until right at the end, even though the document is about aviation. However, the covering note just says that there will be another document about climate change called "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts". All that is given is a list of details about the figures, with no comments about what we are going to do about them. Indeed, interestingly, there is a comment about National Air Traffic Services, but no discussion of the fact that we could reduce our emissions from air transport by 11 per cent. if we simply had a single version of NATS across the European Union, instead of being divided up as we are now. That is a simple measure that the Government do not even propose in their document.
	The introduction of the document, which one would have thought would refer to the real issue of climate change, does not refer to it at all. The Minister talks about the loudest possible wake-up call, but it has not woken up the Secretary of State or anyone in her Department. Then we open the pages and we read the Government saying:
	"Our approach is entirely consistent with the Stern Review...and the Eddington Transport Study",
	which dealt with aviation and was by the man who ran British Airways. However, the one word that is not in the document is urgency; indeed, there is no urgency in it at all. It talks about the European trading system without mentioning any of the problems that everybody else recognises must be solved before the system can deal with aviation. One would think from the document that the problems had all been solved so easily.
	Then one reads, on page after page, every kind of argument, but no promise from the Government that they will pioneer, at the European level, the stopping of new runway building throughout the European Union. The document does not mention that; it just says, "There're more elsewhere, so we've got to have one." The document does not mention that nearly one quarter of the flights out of London's airports go to places that are easily reached in the same time by train. For example, what are we going to do about the 30-odd flights a day to Manchester? There is no reason to have those. There is nothing about those in the document, nor is there anything about reversing the slot pricing, so that people pay more for short-haul flights and less for long-haul flights. There are none of those creative systems that one might put forward.

John Gummer: It is more reasonable for their children and grandchildren to be under water. My hon. Friend does believe in the urgency of the situation, but I am afraid that we must face it much more toughly than that. Anyway, if that issue really matters, what about a transport policy that would enable people to go by train from Manchester to Heathrow? What about a transport policy that was properly tied up? What about a transport policy that recognised that we want to get people from Scotland to London fast enough for them not to want to fly in an aeroplane? What we have got is a transport policy that accepts the nonsense of Eddington that we do not need high-speed rail. That in itself makes the Eddington report totally unbelievable in the international context.
	The truth is that the Government's document is an outrage, because in effect it says, "We don't really feel we need to do the big things". Of course my hon. Friend is right: it is very difficult to do them. Indeed, we might have to do all kinds of things that are uncomfortable, but we should at least face up to the situation. At least let us say, "We've decided in this area we're not going to do it, because we're going to do it somewhere else." I say this to the Government: do not slide out a document but then not come here so that we can ask these questions directly of the Transport Minister. Do not produce a document that is 10 years out of date in its approach, that ignores Stern and that does not back up what the Prime Minister has already said to us. That is the problem with everything else that the Government are doing. That is why I want to press the Minister who is here today, because I am a great supporter of his. I believe that he is tough enough to fight for these issues.
	Can we have feed-in tariffs without any more nonsense? That is what we need. Can they be tied up by the immediate introduction of the Bill already in Parliament—the Liberal Democrats' Bill, with all-party support—that would enable smart metering? If we did that over the next eight years, we could make a huge difference. Those policies can be delivered only through the European Union, so can we also show that we have a positive policy in the EU? That is the only area big enough to make the world different. However, we will not be able to do that if the Government do not even say in their document on aviation that they are seeking to ensure that there is no increase in runways throughout Europe. Unless they promise to do that, everything else that they say is hollow. That is why I say to the Minister: this is too urgent an issue to allow anybody to do anything without thinking about the climate change results. Why did the Government say that they would close 2,500 post offices without telling us what the climate—

Celia Barlow: I welcome this timely debate, particularly as I had the honour of serving on the Joint Committee on the draft Climate Change Bill, which is further proof of the Government's unswerving commitment to the global challenge.
	Britain continues to lead the way, with innovative policies and proposals, which will lead to a measurable change in our lifestyles. The green homes service outlined in the Prime Minister's speech to the WWF will be the first nationwide, dedicated service advising people on a wide range of green issues. There is undoubtedly a desire on behalf of the consumer to act more responsibly with regard to their individual carbon footprint. People wish to reduce their carbon footprint, but all too often they are not given the tools with which to measure their energy output accurately.

Celia Barlow: I shall get on to a related point about smart boxes in a moment.
	In order for a smart metering system to be truly effective, it would require the co-operation of all the energy suppliers in the UK. One way to circumvent that problem would be to introduce smart boxes into our homes. They would enable an individual to trace every single light that was switched on in their house, and to measure the resulting carbon cost. For the first time, the consumer would be able to make a real, measured assessment of their household energy consumption. This is one possible alternative to smart meters.
	Many of our leading media and internet providers have already considered introducing smart boxes that could be linked to the internet to provide solid data on our energy consumption. That would make the measuring of such data much easier. If, however, we were to opt for smart metering, the organisation required would present one of the industry's biggest challenges. The energy suppliers' trade association has prepared a smart metering operational framework. However, it represents only the suppliers' view. A new organisation consisting of suppliers, distribution network operators, the national grid, Ofgem and, of course, the Government would have to be set up. The involvement of communications experts and providers would also be important.
	Legal competition issues are judged by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and by Ofgem to be preventing the creation of an understanding of a reliable and cost-effective two-way communication system from authorised parties to the metering device and from the metering device to other components of the system.

Michael Jack: Speaking as a Member who represents the north-west of England, I am aware that Manchester airport has offered a lifeline by pointing out that more services could go from there to utilise the additional capacity of its second runway, thus helping to address the issue while not ducking the question of aviation emissions.
	Aviation gets the panning, but what about emissions from the maritime sector? I wish people would spend as much time focusing on what comes out of the funnels of all the dirty ships in the world as they spend examining what comes out of the tailpipes of aircraft. Ships are, if anything, greater emitters, yet they sneak around and do not get the whip from those who wish to see transport play a greater part in reducing our emissions.
	Having advocated the appointment of a single Cabinet Minister to be in charge of climate change, I wish that DEFRA would be more candid about the multiplicity of targets that we have to hit in the United Kingdom. The Select Committee strongly supported the Climate Change Bill, but we must recognise that we are already running behind time in regard to meeting the target of a 60 per cent. reduction in emissions, never mind the stronger 80 per cent. target that the Committee has advocated. The Minister should think about communicating to the country the reason that we are behind time in that way, and what our citizens, our companies and our Government need to do to play catch-up and get us back on track.
	I was disappointed by the Government's reply to our report. They would not agree to provide some form of trajectory to enable people to measure their progress towards the intermediate and final targets. That might involve a move away from absolute targeting on an annual basis, but we need to be able to track progress. The arguments put forward in the Government's reply were, to say the least, very thin indeed.
	Today's debate has been occasioned by the Bali conference and the latest findings of the United Nations, but the one thing that the Minister did not tell us was what is being done internationally to try to ensure that the United States comes on board once and for all and publicly. It is all very well for us in the House of Commons to come up with comforting ideas on what we can do domestically and in Europe, where there is commitment to dealing with climate change, but there is no point in our doing so if the world's biggest polluter is not publicly on board. I applaud the efforts of various Senators and the state of California, and the market for emissions in the north-east of the United States, but unless the United States Government are convinced and committed, now and in the future, no amount of good international discussion will move the world forward and enable it to deal with this global phenomenon.
	The United Nations and Stern have spelled out the international consequences of inactivity, and against such a powerful scientific background I find it profoundly worrying that we have no consensus. I cannot believe that there are not individuals in China, India and the other countries that have not signed up to Kyoto who are not worried, as we are, about the international consequences of inactivity. That is why having a single powerful individual in our Government to deal with the matter might increase our ability to influence the national stage if Bali is to be a success.
	In our report "Climate change: 'the citizen's agenda'", the Select Committee set considerable store by local action. One of the things that worries me even about the Prime Minister's latest initiative on access to information, which I welcome, is the fact that we are still in top-down mode. We put information up and hope that it will flutter down and that the citizen will pick it up and do something. In my constituency, I am working hard with many partners—the regional development agency, the Environment Agency, local authorities, local businesses and schools—to make ours the most energy-efficient borough in the country; but our initiative, known as FLoWE, is finding it hard work. The local authority does not have the budget or the resources to implement homespun but none the less committed action on climate change.
	Our Committee went down to Woking to see the market leader in locally based activity. Its combined heat and power scheme makes one wonder why it is so difficult for the Wokings of the world to have their way. I ask the Minister please to consider carefully what could be done to stimulate more bottom-up activity in this country—to make it more possible for local authorities to become involved in the commerce of climate change, and to let the citizen play an informed part in meeting the challenge of putting the country back on track in terms of its targets.

Phil Woolas: I thank Members for their contributions, which demonstrated that we made the right decision in providing opportunities for topical debates. Let me begin with the last of those contributions. I think it important that the Chairman of our Select Committee—especially as he is a Conservative—said what he did about the policy of the United States of America. I thank him for and congratulate him on those remarks.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) made an important speech about smart metering, which was mentioned by others as well. It is important for us to roll out smart metering. The Government are currently analysing responses to consultation, and we will make announcements soon; but clearly, as has been pointed out, the ability to measure in itself affects behaviour, and may be relevant to some of the other steps that we have discussed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) welcomed the principles espoused by the United Kingdom as we move towards the Bali process. He commented on the importance of the World Bank mechanism, correctly identifying that as our policy, and warned us not to rely exclusively on the role of markets. He is right to acknowledge the importance of other mechanisms.
	I remind the House that our international action is not just the "rhetoric" of which the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) accused us. I do not think that $1.5 billion is rhetoric. We have established our international environment transformation fund, and in many countries around the world we are already engaged in real, on-the-ground projects.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made a powerful call in respect of skills needs. I believe we should replicate across the country the example that he is setting in his constituency, including the mechanisms that operate in various colleges and institutions. We need to talk to colleagues in Whitehall about this, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the policy must become real in terms of increased jobs and opportunities.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) welcomed some of our policies, but said that we had "faffed around". I do not think the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has been faffing around; I think it has engaged in good consultation, and we have listened to some of it. The hon. Gentleman praised St. Pancras. The reason there are fewer flights from Manchester is that there are faster trains to Euston, and I think that the same is true of flights from Paris to London. I do not accept the point about my constituents not being able to fly; they have as much right to fly as everyone else.
	The right hon. Member for Fylde knows that I acknowledge his expertise and commitment. The central point is that we must change the way in which we do things. Our message to our people is not that they must stop doing things; it is a question of the type of fuel that we use, the type of vehicle that we use and the mix of transport that we use. We believe that action works only in the context of two things: a carbon market so that emissions can be traded—
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put.

Bill Rammell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill concerns the prudent management of one of the Government's public assets, the student loan book. Before I deal with its provisions, I will briefly explain the context and why the Bill is being introduced now.
	The Government strongly believe that talent and hard work, not social background or where a person went to school, should determine success in life. We believe that no one should be held back from realising his or her potential at university because of fears of financial hardship. That is why we have been systematically breaking down the financial barriers to higher education.
	First, we changed the nature of student loans, linking repayments directly to graduate earnings, and started collection through straightforward payroll deduction alongside income tax and national insurance once the graduate is in work and earning. Secondly, no home full-time undergraduate studying for their first degree has to pay tuition fees before they study because there are now loans for fees. Thirdly, we have reintroduced non-repayable maintenance grants for students from low-income backgrounds, and last July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a significantly enhanced new financial support package for students, under which from next year two thirds of students will be eligible for non-repayable grants. In addition, we have ensured that universities are paying out non-repayable bursaries.
	Fourthly, the package that we announced for next year offers a guarantee to those in receipt of the educational maintenance allowance that if they are receiving it at the age of 16, they will be guaranteed the amount of money they will get in student financial support when they go to university. We are also introducing for the first time the option of a loan repayment holiday of up to five years to allow flexibility and choice in repayment.

Bill Rammell: We are introducing the adult learning grants, which give for the first time an equivalent commitment to the educational maintenance allowance. I am not in the business today of making future announcements, but I will say for the record that before this Government came to power there was no financial support whatever for part-time students. We were the first Government to institute a part-time student grant, and 18 months ago we increased that by 27 per cent. We also substantially increased the access to learning fund, initially from £3 million to £12 million. While there are further challenges for us to face up to, we have a good track record on this issue.

Bill Rammell: I can certainly give assurances on that. We have launched a major communication campaign to get across the facts about the new system, including through TV, radio and online advertising. We have also made available a DVD setting out the facts for advisers and students. It is available as well to Members of Parliament, if they wish to engage actively in this process and inform their constituents.
	In terms of this substantially enhanced package, it is worth saying for the record that those who predicted that the introduction of variable fees would lead to a reduction in the number of people applying to university—and particularly in the number of those from poorer backgrounds—are being proved emphatically wrong. Entry to university this autumn by English students is 6 per cent. higher than last year, and a higher proportion are from poorer backgrounds.
	There is now a developing consensus in the House. The Conservative party has shifted its position from opportunistic opposition to the Government stance, which we welcome; they now support our position. Even the Liberal Democrats appear to be moving. I have always said that people should judge politicians not by what they say, but by what they do, and in government in Scotland the Liberal Democrats supported a system of postgraduate repayment that is absolutely no different in principle from the system that we have in England. I understand that they are now reviewing their position for England, and one of their think-tanks has even advocated outright support for the Government's position. Therefore, I think we are creating a settled consensus.

Andrew Smith: I welcome the Minister's commitment on that point. He is right that we should be clear on this matter. Will he assure present and future students that nothing in the Bill or in this transfer could result in information being passed to financial or marketing companies and that the private sector can count on no such gain in its estimate of what it is prepared to pay?

John Hayes: On the last point, before the Minister moves on to another exciting aspect of the Bill, can he clarify whether the safeguards sought by the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) are in the Bill and will be part of the terms of sale—the contract—or will be covered by some other parliamentary mechanism, such as guidance or a statutory instrument?

Bill Rammell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 6(4), which clearly states that personal information can be disclosed and used only
	"for purposes in connection with a transferred loan."
	I might add that his definition of "exciting" clearly differs from mine.
	The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement on Tuesday on the breach of procedures that led to missing personal data relating to child benefit from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. My right hon. Friend rightly stated that that was an extremely serious failure by HMRC in its responsibility to the public. He also stated that immediate steps had been and were being taken to prevent that from happening again.
	The Government take the protection of personal data, in whatever form, extremely seriously, and student loan data are no exception. The provisions catering for the sharing of HMRC information in the Bill will strengthen the framework for legal protection of HMRC data in respect of all loans, whether sold or unsold. The Bill will extend an existing criminal sanction prohibiting the wrongful disclosure of HMRC information outside the terms of the legislative gateway.

Bill Rammell: I need to be careful and precise about this, but the Chancellor set out those reassurances in his statement on Tuesday, and a review is taking place.
	Following the statement on Tuesday, Lord Triesman, the Minister responsible for intellectual property, has asked the Student Loans Company to review its operations and data management processes. No breaches of data protection protocols have occurred in respect of student loan administration. Furthermore, we are certain that no data have gone missing in respect of student loan administration. HMRC has initiated a wide-ranging review of its security processes and procedures, and so naturally we are doing so for student loans, as are all other Departments for their data management processes.
	HMRC has temporarily suspended its data sharing operations with the SLC in respect of student loans while the measures described by the Chancellor are being put in place. However, repayments are continuing to be deducted from borrowers in the usual manner.

Bill Rammell: The best, most effective protocols possible will apply to both Government owned debt and privately owned debt. There will be no distinction and no difference in the way in which these matters are treated between the public and private sectors.
	The idea of selling student loans is not new. The Government have successfully sold tranches of student loans in the past. In 1998 and 1999 there were two sales of the old "mortgage-style" student loans for a total of around £2 billion. The Government believe that there will be an appetite for these assets in the marketplace in respect of the Bill, not only because of the previous sales, but because of the distinctive characteristics that make student loans an attractive purchase. The loans would provide an investor with access to a new instrument with unique characteristics, allowing them further to diversify their portfolio, and a sustained income over a long period from a group of borrowers who, when taken as a whole, are considered relatively low-risk. Those features make the student loans an attractive candidate for purchase by a wide range of potential investors.
	All transactions will be subject to a rigorous assessment that we are achieving good value for money. In making that assessment, the Government will examine the prevailing market conditions and ensure that a competitive market for the loans has been generated. The Government will also provide the market with full information about the loan book in order that the assets can be efficiently valued. The Government will ensure that there has been a genuine transfer of risk from the public accounts to the private sector. The Government will assess the proceeds that look likely to be achieved in the transaction using full and clear market information and a comparison with keeping the loans on their books, in terms of both likely income flows and levels of risk. As with the previous loan sales, the Government will draw on specialist advice from within Departments and from appropriate external sources. We will draw on NAO guidance in our approach to assessing value for money, and these judgments will of course rightly be subject to scrutiny by the NAO in due course.
	Making a sound judgment about the timing and pricing of sales is particularly important given the recent turbulence in world credit and financial markets. It is not possible to predict the potential market conditions in the future, and the market conditions will naturally vary for different sales in a long-term programme, which is what we are talking about. Our intention is that portions of the loan book would be sold at regular intervals as part of an ongoing programme, and we will closely monitor the market so that sales can be made at the right time. Decisions will, rightly, always be informed by what provides the best value for money for the taxpayer.
	The 1998 legislation, which enabled the previous sales, has been repealed, and so cannot be amended to enable sales of income contingent loans. We are therefore introducing this Sale of Student Loans Bill, which will allow sales to take place while protecting the interests of all borrowers regardless of whether their loan is sold or retained. I give borrowers this reassurance: purchasers of loans will not be able to charge a different rate of interest; they will not be able to change the income threshold for repayments; and they will not be able to use a borrower's personal details for any purpose beyond that which is required for management of the loans.

Adam Afriyie: Clearly, Northern Rock has got into serious financial difficulties recently, as we are all aware. If a purchaser of the loan book gets into serious difficulty or undertook unacceptable practices, what safeguards are there that the Government would have any control over that situation?

Bill Rammell: We have detailed external advice that there is a secure market for this kind of transaction. I think we can go forward with confidence on that basis.
	Several Members want to speak, so I shall move to a conclusion. Clause 1 allows the Government to sell some or all of our obligations relating to student loans, while retaining the power to require that purchasers administer the loans in a way that meets our requirements. Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State flexibility to include provisions in sales contracts to ensure that borrowers' interests are fully protected. That means that borrowers of sold loans will be entitled to the same process of mediation to which all borrowers currently have access, further underlining the Government's commitment to ensure that all borrowers are treated equally. The next two clauses extend that principle.
	Clause 5 allows the Government to insist that the Student Loans Company continues to fulfil its current functions and remains the institution that will contact borrowers about their loans. That is important. Clause 7 explicitly confirms an existing understanding that all student loans are exempt from the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because their characteristics differ substantially from commercial loans. In Clause 8, the Bill provides powers for Welsh Ministers in respect of Wales, equivalent to those it proposes for the Secretary of State in relation to England.

John Hayes: I had not expected the Minister to begin his peroration with a short statement in general terms on access to higher education. As he did so, however, may I briefly say that the Conservative party and the Conservative education team in Parliament are dedicated to the principle of widening access to higher education by all means? In that regard, and to reflect the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), one of the best ways of widening access is to look at modes of learning as well as at other factors. Part-time learning, modular learning and distance learning have a vital role to play in the mission of widening access and participation. However, that might be a debate for another day, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall address the matters before us.
	We welcome the principle behind the Bill. As the Minister said, it transfers risks from the public to the private sector, but in a measured and careful way. Indeed, as the Minister and the House will know, at the last two general elections the Conservatives advocated similar plans, so it is ironic that the Minister suggests that we are imitating the Government—ironic that the Government's plan for the sale of student loans appears to be on loan from the Conservative party; although, when we announced our plans, we proposed that the money raised should be used to endow universities—a point to which I shall return.
	The Bill is short and, seemingly, straightforward, but I want to bring a number of issues to the House's attention. They will no doubt be scrutinised in detail in Committee and when the Bill goes through its other stages before becoming law.

Phil Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it odd that the Minister's excellent presentation of the Bill missed out a key area—what will happen to the money? Does the hon. Gentleman feel, as I do, that as the Bill is a DIUS matter and the money is collected from university students, at least some proportion of it should be guaranteed for the support of higher education? That may accord with his theme on endowments, although I would not necessarily agree with that specific policy.

John Hayes: Far be it from me to make a spending commitment on behalf of the Opposition. I have been around too long to be seduced into going down a road that would not be in my interests to travel, but I will return to the matter that he raises in general terms later during my, I hope, relatively short speech—at least, short by my standards.
	According to the explanatory notes to the Bill, the intention is to enable
	"a programme of sales of students loans, as announced in paragraph 6.42 of the 2007 Budget Report."
	Indeed, the Minister made reference to that. Paragraph 6.42 states that the sale of part of the student loan book
	"will raise around £6 billion by the end of 2010-11."
	We have already discussed the turbulence in the financial markets. The Minister will appreciate that there are understandable concerns therefore about whether this is the best time to conduct such a sale. I suspect that he knows well that it is not, and I hope that he will comment on that when he responds to the debate.
	The student loan book was valued at about £18.1 billion at the end of the 2006-07 financial year, but I have no doubt that the Minister will have estimated the face value of the book in 2007-08. He has already suggested that further projections have been made—indeed, "projections" was the word that he used. It would be useful in considering the Bill if the House were to have some feel for the nature of those projections. It is true that there are commercial sensitivities, but if we are to consider the Bill with the proper diligence that the House and the hon. Members currently represented here certainly would wish us to do, we should have some sense of the notional estimates that the Government have made and that their advisers have offered. Will the Minister therefore say a little more about those projections? The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough intervened on that subject when the Minister was on his feet.
	I appreciate that it is not necessarily the Government's intention to conduct the sale at the moment, but there are good reasons to be concerned that a sale might be rushed and the taxpayer consequently short-changed. Figures released this week show that public sector borrowing stands at £24.2 billion in the financial year to date—the highest figure for the first seven months of the year since 1994-05, and £6.7 billion worse than last year.

John Hayes: An equally sagacious colleague is about to anticipate the line but one of my speech.

John Hayes: Mischievous voices in the House are encouraging me to do things that you would not want me to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not allow them to have their way.
	It is important that the Minister assures the House that the sale of student loans will not be rushed to fill a hole in public finances. It is true that we have had some experience of that kind. Our fears are legitimised by those sorry experiences—those of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).
	The Minister must also explain how the estimate of £6 billion has come about. With an estimated face value of £18.1 billion, what mechanisms were used to arrive at the estimated £6 billion, which is what the Government say is likely to be raised, for the sale of the loan book? What proportion of the asset do the Government estimate they will need to sell to raise £6 billion? What is the expected time scale for the sale of the loan book, and what are the notional volumes? The Minister said that the Government were likely to sell the loan book off in parts, but he gave us no feel for what estimate had been made of the timetable for that or the size of the parts. Again, one appreciates that there are commercial necessities in this regard, but the House deserves a little more information than we have had thus far.
	As the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) suggested, it is also important that the House and the wider public are absolutely assured about any possible impact on students. The Minister has been helpful in that regard, both privately in briefings and today in the House. However, let us be frank: there will be fears and worries about this matter among existing students, potential students, families and so on. Anything that disincentivises people who have the capacity and potential to study at university or college needs to be countered. Those assurances will need to be made repeatedly during the passage of the Bill.
	The explanatory notes state:
	"No aspect of this Bill will create a material impact on borrowers, higher education institutions or employers."
	As a result, no regulatory impact assessment has been prepared or published. However, clause 5(2), which covers repayments, states that
	"regulations or arrangements may provide for...collection by a person acting on behalf of a loan purchaser".
	Will the Minister clarify whether there is any intention to involve anyone else, besides the Student Loans Company, in the collection of repayments? If there is not, I am not entirely clear why that provision has been included.
	It would also be useful if the Minister told the House whether any assessment had been made of the likely purchaser of the loans. He made it clear that there is a market. He has also told the House this afternoon that the Government have taken expert advice on the subject, as one would expect. I would also expect him to give the House some feel for the sort of organisation that might purchase the book. Where are those organisations located? Are they overseas companies, international companies or domestic organisations? What is their track record? Who is likely to be involved? He does not have to stray into the area of commercial sensitivities, which would jeopardise the sale, to give us some reassurance about how he thinks things might work out.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is right: the book is likely to be sold on. That is the nature of this kind of business. The absolute assurance that the House seeks is that nothing is likely to occur that will jeopardise the circumstances of students or institutions of higher education. It would be difficult for any Minister, of any party, to predict how the situation might pan out. The book could be sold on over a period of years. However, allowing for that difficulty, some feel for the sort of advice that the Government have been given, some understanding of the projections they have made, and some estimate of how they expect matters to be concluded, is the least the House deserves. The House will certainly want that, both today and during our further scrutiny of the Bill.
	As the Minister will appreciate, another issue on which there is widespread public concern is data protection. We had a useful exchange on that earlier. Clause 6 extends previous legislation to allow data about borrowers that is held by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to be passed to loan purchasers, or potential purchasers. The Bill makes it clear that where information is shared with potential purchasers for the purpose of considering the purchase, details must be anonymised, but of course recent difficulties were about not theory, but practice. It may be necessary for the Minister to reflect on events and consider those details once again. I do not expect him to come up with an answer off the cuff today, but we might usefully consider the issue during the passage of the Bill.
	In the light of recent events, I would not be surprised if we came to a conclusion that was agreeable to Members across the House to strengthen protection. That would be helpful to Government, to the House, and to people affected by the legislation. It is our intention to scrutinise closely that aspect of the Bill and, if necessary, to propose amendments, if we feel that data protection is not adequately dealt with in the measures before the House. I do not want to stray into further discussion on the loss, disclosed by the Chancellor, of the details of 25 million benefit recipients. We had a word about it earlier, and it is unfair to rub salt in the wounds; I would be the last person to do that. However, I know that the Minister will have heard the story with horror, knowing that he was coming before the House today to debate the issue before us. He will be very sensitive about it, so I expect him to offer the House and the public reassurance that he will tighten the provisions of Bill, in the same spirit in which I offered to assist. We have a history of working together on legislation to best effect.
	On the proceeds of the sale—a matter raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—there are no provisions in the Bill for the hypothecation of proceeds for reinvestment in higher education. We can therefore assume that the receipts will swell the Consolidated Fund, as the Minister confirmed that in reply to an intervention. I am certain that he will today wish to pledge to the House that higher education will get its fair share of the windfall. He would not be sticking up for his brief and defending those over whom he has stewardship if he did not do that. I would like to hear him make that firm commitment before the end of today's proceedings.
	I would like the Minister to speak in a little more detail, with full technical embellishments, about the position regarding Wales. He has a bit of a record—not a happy one, it has to be said—when it comes to dealing with legislation relating to Wales. Some of us remember the Further Education and Training Bill. It will worry him to hear that I have already received representations about the aspects of the Bill relating to Wales, on matters that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). We need to be assured that those matters have been taken fully into account. Again, we will want to scrutinise that in some detail in Committee. As the Minister will recall, procedural concerns were raised with regard to the extension of powers to the Welsh Assembly when we discussed the Further Education and Training Act 2007; that was when we last faced each other in discussions on legislation.
	This is the second time in the space of a few weeks that I have faced the Minister on an occasion when he has felt obliged to adopt Conservative ideas. The first occasion was when, in a damascene conversion, he accepted Conservative arguments about the Learning and Skills Council's intervention powers in further education colleges. Once again today, a Conservative idea is being embraced by the Minister. It is often suggested that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but as Adlai Stevenson once said, "Flattery is all right so long as you don't inhale".

Austin Mitchell: The Minister will not face much dissent and argument today. It is not as if the House is rising against him. It is clear that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who expressed his support for the Bill at some length, if I may say so—in fact, I would suggest to him that he records his speeches on a CD and pops them in the post—did not say that the Bill would be opposed. I wait with excitement to hear what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), will tell us if she survives long enough to make a speech—I was coughing in sympathy at one stage.
	The Bill is not contentious, but I have one or two criticisms that I shall put on the record. First, we are putting a lot of bundled debt, whether that is called collateralised debt obligations or structured investment vehicles, on to a market already saturated with such debt vehicles, which were the major cause of the problems that the markets began to face in August and are still facing. The market is choked up with bundled debt which is not immediately saleable. As soon as there is a credit squeeze or restriction, the Gadarene instinct of hedge fund managers to get out is impossible to realise. In the States, therefore, funds have closed down and there have been problems in this country with that debt.
	The Government intend to put a massive dollop of debt—£18 billion—on to a market in such a state. It is not a good time to sell. The Minister said that he has had advice that it is saleable and will be well supported by the markets, but that reflects the self-interest of those who give the advice, who are mainly people connected with the markets and want to see them expanded and used. I am worried on that account.
	If the debt is sold on, there is no restriction in the Bill, as far as I can see, on the purchaser selling it on to someone else. Where will the student loan fund end up?

Austin Mitchell: I am grateful for the intervention. It is possible not only that the debt ends up in the assets of a fund or organisation supported by Government, but that it ends up in the assets of a fund that is on the verge of collapse. A Government permission should be necessary for the transfer of the debt once it gets on to the market because we cannot be sure where it will end up.
	Secondly, the measure is based purely on ideology and doctrine, according to which public debt is a bad thing and private debt is a marvellous thing. It is clear that financial markets object to public borrowing because they want the privatisation of all borrowing, as well as the privatisation of credit creation, which has happened to a large extent. There is no reason why the money should not stay on the public books. The only argument that the Government put is that it reduces the public sector borrowing requirement, but that effect is purely presentational. In the main, I would argue that public borrowing is good and private borrowing is often bad; the private debt situation has produced an enormous escalation of asset and house prices, while public debt and borrowing has produced investment and economic growth, and allowed the Government to steer the economy forward.
	The equation of public with bad and private with good is nonsense. There is no reason, ideologically, for such a transfer; there is no reason to sell the asset books. All that does is pretty up the PSBR figures. There is no guarantee that the money coming in—the Minister mentioned £6 billion—will be used for education. The National Union of Students, and the universities, I think, say that the money should go to education. I agree, but it is not—it is just going to general Government funds.
	My third point is that the private sector is not buying the debt out of sheer altruism or a love of supporting the student loans programme and getting more people into university. It is doing it for solid commercial reasons, and it will have to be paid. In the current state of the market, it will have to be paid substantially more to take up the debt than it would had the crisis of August onwards not happened. It has to be well paid for the risks.
	And there are risks. I remember that when I was a university teacher in New Zealand, there was something called the post-primary student bursary, which gave students who committed themselves to going into teaching a teacher's wage to go through university. That was a marvellous institution that encouraged people to go to university. However, when the students left university, they disappeared; many went to teach in England to relieve the crisis in education at that time—this was the '60s. People in raincoats from the education department used to knock on my door and ask whether I knew where student Fred Bloggs was. I knew that Fred Bloggs had gone overseas, but did I know his address? Where did his parents live? Such situations give rise to problems.
	Two years ago, I purchased a fantastic palace in Grimsby and ever since I have been plagued with telephone calls from the Student Loans Company asking about the whereabouts of a girl whose name I shall not give. She was in receipt of a student loan and, apparently, absconded. I did not know the woman. She had never lived at the house; at least, nothing on the records of previous owners indicated her name. However, she had taken out a student loan and disappeared. Considerable expenditure will be necessary to trace such people and the private sector will want to be well rewarded. We may be getting money off the public books, but we will have to pay the private sector substantially to handle it.
	In passing, I should like to put a query to the Minister. I see from the Directgov website that European students from both the European Union and the European economic area are eligible for student loans if they
	"have been living within the EEA and Switzerland for the three years immediately before the start of the course".
	The explanatory notes to the Bill discuss the recovery of
	"student loans made to borrowers domiciled in England (and those studying in England but based overseas) at the time the loan was taken out."
	If there are problems, overseas students will be difficult to trace, assuming that they have gone back to their EU country; Turkish, Swiss and Norwegian students are also going to be eligible. All that will impose an extra cost. How will that be financed? When it takes over the loan book, will the private sector toughen up on all that and what kind of charges will it impose on the Government for providing the services to trace people?
	Finally, I come to my main point, which relates to anxieties to which I am sure the Minister will respond. There is the issue of the terms of the student loans. We sensibly geared the interest rate to the retail price index as we do not want massive interest charges. That gearing has reduced the interest payable on loans throughout the long period of low inflation under this Government; indeed, it has reduced it substantially on the interest rates payable in the early 1990s under the Conservatives.
	However, inflation has gone up, although not because of anything that students have done—it is all due to utility prices. The interest rate is now 4.8 per cent.—double last year's 2.4 per cent. I have had calls from parents in Grimsby warning me about this and saying that it will have a disastrous effect on their daughter's or son's finances. Assuming that a student loan averages £15,000, they will be paying £720 a year, or £60 a month, in interest before they even begin to pay off any of the debt. That will be a monstrous burden for people starting out in life; they will start life's race with a ball and chain on their foot. I hate to think of the prospect of a student who marries a student, with two student loans merged as a double burden on that household.
	This burden is completely unacceptable, and it is likely to get bigger. It will put people off taking out student loans and be a burden on those with loans who are starting out in life and might want to take out a mortgage, buy furniture or a car, or want to contract other debt. We have a debt-burdened society, and we are asking students to start out in it with a big debt already trailing behind them. It is not recoverable under the tribunals and enforcement legislation that we passed in the summer. That will become a political problem for my Government.
	The Minister said that it will be up to Government to vary the terms of student loans even after they have been privatised. I am glad to hear that, because they should wipe out the interest charges. I cite the precedent of the New Zealand Labour party, which promised in its 2005 election manifesto to write off interest on student loans, as it now has. The student gets a statement at the end of the year saying that a certain amount of interest is due, but it is written off and does not have to be paid. That was enormously effective and very necessary.

John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that because the Government have refused to make a statement on the new airport policy copies of the document that were placed in this House have now run out? People who were not able to question the Minister have sought the document, and there are now none available. Is that really acceptable?

Sarah Teather: By the looks of this packed House today, the Bill has generated enormous excitement and controversy in all parties. We will support the Bill, but we have a number of reservations that we would like to develop further in Committee, including the matter of how the Bill relates to Wales. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) hopes to catch your eye in a few minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to raise that point.
	It is worth putting on the record that my party would not have started from this point. The so-called asset that the Government seek to sell today is the burden of debt that they have imposed on students since they came to office. The total student debt of £18 billion is more than the gross domestic product of Slovenia, believe it or not. It represents a millstone around the neck of each student who has graduated under this Labour Government. The truth is that we do not really know what the implications of the debt will be for a whole cohort of graduates throughout their lives. We have been engaged in what essentially amounts to a giant experiment. We do not know what effect it will have on their career choices, or on their decisions about whether to have a family, get married or buy a home. We will not know that for another 10, or even 15 years, by which stage it will be too late for us to turn back the clock.
	Despite the Minister's assurances, many graduates now struggling to pay back their student debt on what are often quite low new graduate salaries remain concerned that the selling of the debt to a private company could be a precursor to raising the interest rates to commercial levels. I am pleased that the Minister denied that point on record, but I wish that he would include it in the Bill to reassure students who are likely to have their debts sold off in future, and graduates, who will be affected by this change.
	Graduates already face a hike in the interest rates on their loans this year. The rates have doubled to 4.8 per cent., as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned, from 2.4 per cent. last year, due to the slightly bizarre way in which the Government calculate interest rates for student loans. It is not just that they use an entirely different inflation figure for students from the one they use for other purposes, but the rate is not even averaged over the year. It is set arbitrarily on the basis of one month in March. If that month happens to be one in which oil prices are running high, and there are hikes in utility bills, for the rest of that year students will pay the cost in their interest rates. Students are concerned that this is the beginning of a domino effect. They saw fees, then top-up fees and may assume the raising of the cap, and then the introduction of commercial interest rates. They would welcome the sort of assurance that I mentioned—the Minister including something clearly in the Bill to demonstrate the Government's future intentions. They can always amend it later. We have seen plenty of amending legislation from the Government in the past 10 years.
	The Minister is adamant that although his Department is leading on the Bill, it is not about higher education and will have no effect on students or universities. It is merely a short-term tactic to raise immediate revenue for the Treasury and to offload risk on to someone else. If we are to accept the Government's argument about offloading risk, are we sure that anyone would want to buy the student loan book? The loans are riskier than the mortgage-style loans that were sold, and it takes longer to pay them off. They were income contingent, so if income levels drop the loan repayments will dry up. Any investor would be gambling on the future of England's economy.

Sarah Teather: Let me develop the point. What about those students from the European Union whom we have discussed? That is especially relevant as more students move around. What happens if students move abroad? Are they more or less likely to default? With a free market in higher education across Europe, are we sure that such loans will always be a secure investment? I am not quite so sure. Those points need to be explored.
	What requirement is there on HMRC to pursue those students who fail to pay back their loans? If the buyers of the student loan book are to rely on HMRC's competence to realise the value of their purchase, this week will have fatally undermined the price of the assets on offer.
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby referred to debt bundles, and he made a good point. With the lack of liquidity in the financial market today, there is a serious question about whether any bank would want to take on the risk of buying the student loan book. If banks are loth to invest at the moment, there is a risk that the Government will have heavily to sweeten the deal to interest buyers.
	A number of hon. Members have asked how large a discount the Government will need to give to investors and what proportion of the book they will sell to raise the £6 billion. The Minister has consistently said that he cannot answer because that would reveal all the Government's cards to investors, but the cat is out of the bag. We know that the Government's finances are tighter this year and that there is a greater squeeze on spending. Selling the student loan book under those circumstances is rather like advertising on lastminute.com: "The plane leaves in 24 hours, all tickets must go. Any price accepted." We should perhaps be a little concerned that there is a risk that the Government will put in far too great a sweetener, which would lower what is good value for money.
	How will the Government decide what is good value for money? How will we know what they have done to establish that? If the Government do not reach a deal that is good value for money, will they postpone the sale or proceed anyway? They will need to receive a capital amount to balance the books this year. The Tories did at least postpone the sale in 1996 when they failed to obtain a good price for the taxpayer.
	The problem is that the Government's record is not good. The forthcoming National Audit Office report on QinetiQ, which we expect to be published tomorrow, is a prime example. A large stake in the defence firm was sold at rock-bottom prices to the Carlyle group and then floated on the stock market, which made the group a hefty £300 million profit. That is a prime example of what happens if we do not ensure that we get value for money at the time.
	If the Government succeed in selling the student loan book at a level they believe to be fair, will they undertake to report to the house on the details of the sale before proceeding with further sales? That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made when he asked the Minister to put on the record the discounted rate for the previous sales. I accept that we will not know all the details before the sale, but if the House is to have confidence in what the Government are doing we need to know the success rate that they have achieved so far.
	From the investors' point of view, it is not clear how they will know exactly what they are buying unless the Government intend to release much personal data about the loans. The Minister said that all the information for potential purchasers would be anonymised, but I cannot understand how investors could genuinely appreciate what they were buying without knowing far more about those who owe the debt. That raises concerns.
	What will happen if students default on their payments? The hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Great Grimsby asked about that. Will HMRC pass on information about individuals to the new owners of the debt? What data will be passed to them? What safeguards will be in place? Will HMRC or the new loan owner be responsible for chasing up those who default? How will the relationship work? How will the data be transferred? I presume that the Minister does not want the Opposition to give him details of a reliable courier company and that a better system will be used in future. There was some hubris in the Government's reference to their intentions on data protection in the Q and A that the Department released. I suspect that no hon. Member will be as ready to accept the Government's reassurances about the matter now.
	What will happen when the initial purchaser sells on the debt? The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made that point in interventions. Are the Government genuinely saying, as the Minister told me in private, that they will undertake to draw up a new agreement and contract with any new purchaser, all the way down the line, regardless of the way in which the debt is broken up, the number of people to whom it is sold on and whether it is sold here or abroad? What data protection will be in place as the debt is passed along the chain?
	The Government trespassed on principle long before we reached this point, when they decided to impose large debts for higher education on students just as they start out in life. There are few points of principle in the Bill, but it contains several holes that leave graduates in uncertainty. I hope that the Minister will turn his mind to them in Committee. However, for now, we are content to let the measure through.

Tim Boswell: We are nearing the end of a bad week in Parliament for the Government. However, at last a Bill has come along that we can describe as reasonably sensible. It will have my support today.
	I have a circumscribed role in higher education as, first, a member and officer of the all-party university group and, secondly—the Minister and certainly the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) will be interested in this—a relatively newly appointed governor of a Welsh higher education institution. We shall watch that interface with interest.
	However, given that it is more than a decade since my service as a Higher Education Minister, it is not appropriate for me to debate contentiously or dilate on details of the past. I can say fairly that I floated the idea of doing something along the lines that the Bill suggests and that I have supported the principle of doing so ever since. I welcome the widespread consensus that has been achieved on that. If we consider the reasons for not doing that at the time, it is fair to say that, in the early days of student loans, there was less experience of the repayment compliance. Since then, there has been greater refinement of financial instruments and, perhaps most important, the underlying asset has escalated in value. The asset, allowing for another year's issue of loans, would now approach roughly £20 billion. That is four or five times the value of a decade ago.
	Having said that, the Bill is essentially a Treasury measure. It is not about the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills or about education. It needs assessing for its economic impact and, as several hon. Members who contributed interestingly said, the critical issues are the conditions and timing of any sale that the Treasury makes or drives. There is no more explicit disclaimer of the Department's involvement than that in paragraph 42 of the explanatory notes, which states:
	"No aspect of this Bill will create a material impact on borrowers, higher education institutions or employers."
	If that is the case, one is driven to wonder what on earth the Minister, much as I like and respect him, is doing discussing the Bill. Where is the Treasury, which is in effect controlling the legislation? However, we are pleased to see the Minister here and he explained the Bill very well.
	The Bill's primary importance is economic, although there may be secondary implications for students and the sector. It is clear from this week's events that even if—this would be an impossible task and I do not anticipate that it will take place even in the near future—the Government could sell off, at one gulp and at an early date, all the student loans, the total proceeds would fall below the total amount of current Government lending to Northern Rock. In a sense, things have not gone down the pan, but that is at least the scale of the commitment.
	It is perfectly proper for Ministers, whether Treasury Ministers or Education Ministers, to say that the sale of a loan as a Government asset—a loan is of course an asset—is an alternative to further Government borrowing. Indeed, doing so may introduce some welcome flexibility in the Government's financial affairs. I have no difficulty with that. However, my hon. Friends and others are right to say that we are entitled to ask the Minister to give some indication of the deal that his Department has done to recover the proceeds from the Treasury. For example, are we talking about an enhanced capital programme for higher education institutions? If we are, will it be a genuine enhancement of the resources available to higher education or will it merely be a substitute for others that would have been available?
	Those are general questions about the Bill. There are also some interesting technical questions that are worth probing more in Committee and to which a number of hon. Members have already referred in interventions or speeches. There is an interesting and essential tension between the number and nature of the safeguards available as far as student confidentiality is concerned and the number of players involved. Ministers have rightly fallen back on the overriding guardianship role of the Secretary of State. It is worth noting that the Secretary of State's obligations are set out clearly in paragraph 15 of the explanatory notes. I should make it clear that those obligations fall on him and are not demitted to individual civil servants, whether senior or junior.
	One of those obligations is to ensure that correct repayments are taken. A second one is to protect borrowers' personal data and to make arrangements to allow borrowers to discuss issues that have arisen in the course of their borrowing. Those are entirely proper public functions that sit with the Secretary of State. We cannot have arrangements that are seen to muddy those responsibilities, either within the Department or with regard to the subsequent control of the loans.
	I mentioned this in an intervention, so I will not speak about it at length, but we know from the history of collateralised debt obligations that loans can easily be, and in fact are likely to be, chopped up and repackaged, and can involve a large number of players, some of whom, even if we know who they are, are likely to be outside the jurisdiction of this country and the Secretary of State. At best, when all those people are involved, sensitive data can leak. Indeed, there will be people looking for that to happen, perhaps in order to relate the names to other credit references that they may have. At worst, the data could be actively abused. At any rate, it is clear that the audit trail is bound to lengthen unless it is controlled.
	The next issue is the nature of the risk being transferred. In a sense, that is as long as a piece of string, and whatever risk is being transferred will have to be made explicit to potential purchasers, who will make their own judgment on it. If we consider the old mortgage-style loans, we will remember that there has always been provision for mortality—which, sadly, occurs—and for other non-repayment because the conditions had been fulfilled for writing off the loan after a finite period of years.
	I have some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) about this matter. There are now issues about the susceptibility to changes in economic conditions and the potential for default. I hope that the Minister will say something about the experience of active default as opposed to the writing off of a loan under permitted conditions in the existing arrangements.
	The Minister and I have previously debated the merits or otherwise of the old mortgage-style loans that I used to operate, and I do not want to reopen that debate. I am certainly not saying that we should bring them back now; we move on. However, for borrowers, the terms and obligations attached to those loans were fairly clear. That might not be the case with income-contingent loans, not least because the level of income might not be clear.
	I say to the Minister—as I would say to his Treasury colleagues if they were supporting him on the Front Bench today—that if one is prepared to take a big enough discount, anything, even a sub-prime mortgage, can be got away at a price, but it will only be a severely discounted one. I believe that the Minister is right to keep his powder dry, despite the blandishments of the Liberal Democrats, about the precise conditions under which he is going to sell. I would be the first to complain if he engaged in a fire sale of this very valuable asset. However, he needs to know what he wants to sell, and purchasers will need to know what they want to buy.
	This brings me to a further issue. I am sorry if this point is something of a King Charles's head for me, but I make no apology for repeating it, because I believe that it is important. There is the potential—not the actuality—of a scandal in the making over the question of outstanding student loans that are outside the Secretary of State's jurisdiction. The Minister has been perfectly reasonable and reassuring in relation to loans within the British envelope. Most people pay PAYE, and most student loans are recovered through Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. We understand from what the Minister has said today that, thank goodness, there has been no breach of security in that regard. We accept his assurance and we are pleased about it. However, a significant minority of loans are given to qualifying persons who are not British nationals, including European Union students and those from within the European economic area, and to British nationals who subsequently become resident abroad and do not pay UK income tax.
	The convenient arrangements involving recovery through the Revenue do not apply in those cases. As I understand it, the Student Loans Company is responsible for the collection of those debts, in accordance with the rules. Incidentally, it is also responsible for any voluntary payments that people might make to wipe off their debts, which is welcome. The Minister should tell the House whether there is a material sign of any differential impact between home graduates, if I may call them that, and those resident overseas. I would not be surprised if there were growing evidence of default by those who have passed outside the range of the Revenue and are now difficult to pursue. Without wishing to make a derogatory remark, I must point out that this is similar to the problems of enforcing judgments against foreign drivers, for example.
	The Minister needs to take this issue seriously. If word gets out on the street that someone can take out a student loan in the United Kingdom—we are obliged to offer it—but that they do not need to pay it back because they have moved out of the system or because they are a Brit who has moved abroad, in effect to escape from the loan, that would be very bad news. It is derogatory to our own resident students, and it makes less money available for other public purposes in the long term. I hope that the Minister will say something about compliance in the context of foreign-resident, as opposed to home-resident, graduates.
	This will obviously be a Committee point, but I think we should consider whether purchasers will be obliged to take a proportion of accounts of persons who are resident abroad as part of the package, or whether it is conceivable that a separate package might be offered consisting of persons who are exclusively resident abroad—Student Loans Company cases, rather than Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs cases.
	Perhaps the Minister will allow me a hypothetical example which I think is at least worth considering. If a Lithuanian bank felt able to secure a package of loans extended only to Lithuanian nationals who had come to the United Kingdom to study, and then to attack them under Lithuanian debt laws and get a faster rate of return than it would by going through the front door—in other words, the Student Loans Company—that would be a differential and might even attract some concern in Europe. If nothing else, it should be considered whether there is any distinction in practice that makes the position of students either easier or more onerous depending on whether they are resident in the United Kingdom or abroad—whether as an English, or British, national or as a foreign national—that would amount to a loss of that famous and desirable concept, the level playing field. To put it simply, it would not be fair.
	Although the Bill is narrow, a number of Members have referred to some of the wider policy contexts. As we are lucky enough to have an Education Minister present, I think it reasonable to make a few brief comments of that kind.
	There are major long-term issues in the Bill, for all that it is Treasury-driven and will be Treasury-directed, which relate to the real world of students and, indirectly, to the health of higher education institutions and the overall health of the sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has said in the past, once the Department has settled down after its initial separation from the other education Department, it needs to make an early start on appraising the impacts of the present fee regime ahead of the 2009 review. In fairness, the Minister has quoted figures for recruitment which will be relevant to that, and which I welcome.
	As a whole, the present position is encouraging. The Conservatives, too, are interested—certainly I am interested—in access for people who, although they are from disadvantaged backgrounds, have the same potential as, or even greater potential than, some of their counterparts. We need to discover whether there are differential impacts, not just according to social class or income but relating to the pattern of offers among part-timers and mature students.
	The other day I went to talk to a group of sixth-formers. I was a little disappointed when someone who seemed bright enough to qualify for university said very definitely, "I am not going." When I asked,, Would you mind telling me why?", the reply was, "I am worried about debt." That was a one-off—it may have been the word on the street, and it may not be typical of students collectively—but it is depressing nevertheless.
	The Minister may be aware—it has featured in earlier debates—of my concern about the cumulative effect on marginal tax rates of income tax—perhaps even paid by quite junior people at higher rates—national insurance contributions and student loan repayments. I can never remember what the acronym is supposed to stand for, but some social scientists have referred to members of the so-called iPod generation, who incur, in effect, a marginal tax rate of over 50 per cent. at a very young age, which I think is worrying.
	That also plays into wider issues to do with life profile and life chances. People who are repaying onerous student loans might at the same time be founding households or thinking for the first time about taking out a mortgage—and, as we all know, they ought to be thinking about their pension, too, when there is a chance that compound interest will give them a worthwhile pension.
	In saying that, I do not seek to subvert anything the Minister has done. A good job was done collectively in Committee on proposed higher education legislation in getting a better student package. I am happy in some respects about that. We cannot anticipate the review, but we should emphasise that it is important and that it is about sustaining access and at least controlling the burdens on graduates even if they have a better future income stream.
	There are questions to do not only with the conventional model of higher education students, but also with part-time and mature students. I will not today open up the issue of payments through higher education institutions for qualifications of equivalent or lower quality, although that is a concern of mine—about which I have written to the Secretary of State—because of some of the impacts on some institutions and types of study.
	There is also the whole area of comparison with further education. The Minister was not quite right when he said that nobody has ever helped in that area before, because career development loans have been available for many years. In a sense, they are a private sector risk—a managed and reduced risk. However, the scale of the commitment to CDLs pales in comparison with the size of the student loan book.
	Part-timers at higher education institutions have, at last, been able to avail themselves of loans in certain circumstances, which is welcome, but some recent work has come to my attention through City and Guilds—the Minister might have seen it, too—confirming my long-standing belief that FE is left standing in terms of student support, however great its economic contribution might be. I hope that that will be addressed, and that the Minister will take those disparities seriously.
	As I move on in my parliamentary career, I can reflect as well as—I hope—look forward. It is a strange fact that the Education Act 1962 marks the beginning of the concept of the student support package and the mandatory award. I was an undergraduate at that time. Since then, the whole body of measures has gathered barnacles, accretions, qualifications, embellishments, derogations and further advantages. Let me give a simple example: it was not until approximately 1990 that the first student loans were added to supplement the grants package, and Ministers have now brought back the grants package to supplement the loans. The concept of an entitlement, or mandatory award, attached to a first course of undergraduate study at a higher education institution has, however, persisted; but the time is fast approaching for us to take a fresh look not only at student finances, although that is important, but at the whole of the financing of post-compulsory education at higher and further education level and also embracing training and the important and growing area of continuing professional development. None of that is included in the Bill, as it is a technical, enabling Bill, which is all right as far as it goes—at least we hope that there is none of that, and that such changes to the system might only have crept in inadvertently. The issues we are discussing are serious and deep, however, and we will have to address and tackle them before too long.

Robert Wilson: The Minister may be aware of the early-day motion tabled by some Labour Back Benchers—I described them as the usual suspects—that calls for the abolition of interest on student loan repayments, which would raise costs for the Treasury significantly. I wondered whether he could advise us how much that would cost, perhaps in terms of how many nurses and teachers would need to be sacked. In any case, I advise him to keep an eye on the left wing of his party, so that it does not lurch too far to the left.
	We are satisfied in general terms that the Bill includes sufficient safeguards for buyers and borrowers. The proposals will transfer a growing debt portfolio, and all the risks that go with it, out of public hands and into those of private institutions, which are vastly more experienced than Government in debt management. Those private institutions are also probably more experienced in data protection, given this week's calamity—a point made powerfully by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
	The National Union of Students has already stated its concern that the Bill may be a step towards students paying commercial rates of interest. I do not believe that it is, and it should be noted that students still enjoy a favourable interest rate that is pegged to inflation. There is little for students to worry about in the Bill, which probably explains why they have not been more vociferous in their representations to hon. Members. Students may be more concerned, however, that the average graduate debt is £15,000 and takes some 13 years to pay off, as the Minister recently informed me in a written answer.
	Like the hon. Member for Brent, East, we recognise that financing a university education can be a challenge for many students and their families. We welcome the fact that the Bill enables the Government to preserve the low interest rate that students currently enjoy. In that context the point made by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) is relevant in making sure that we are communicating directly with students on this matter.
	The Minister, in his opening remarks, was right to say that it is prudent to consider the timing of any sale of the loan book. I understand that passing the legislation does not necessarily mean an immediate sale. As many hon. Members have said, in the light of the Northern Rock fiasco and the dark economic clouds over the banking sector and the economy, that is a particularly relevant and important concern.
	There are questions on which I hope the Minister can shed some light. I understand that the proceeds from the sale are already accounted for in the comprehensive spending review. Perhaps he can tell the House whether there is a time limit on when the sale must be undertaken. If putting the revenue into the comprehensive spending review means that the money must be raised within three years, does that weaken our negotiating position in getting the best deal? My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made a good point when he asked how much of the £6 billion is already accounted for in the comprehensive spending review and where it is allocated. If the Government do not raise the expected sum, what impact will that have on the Government's spending plans?
	I remind the Government that the student loan book is a public asset and taxpayers will expect a reasonable price from any sell-off. The Government must avoid the temptation to cash in too quickly for the sake of the public sector borrowing requirement and pressure to raise funds. It was absolutely right for my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) to remind the Minister that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer sold a large portion of the gold reserves for a quarter of the price that we could have got shortly afterwards, even if in doing so my hon. Friend slightly changed the flow of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pointed out yesterday, the Government undervalued QinetiQ to the tune of £300 million.
	I will be helpful to the Government, because they have had such a stinker of a week, and demonstrate why there is no rush to sell. Despite the concern put by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and for Brent, East, this sale is a good deal for whichever commercial entity wins it. The House should note that these loans are not sub-prime mortgages. Graduates are likely to move directly into employment and begin repayment quickly. These loans are an attractive asset for banks, providing a continuous income over a long period from a low-risk group, collected securely through the tax system. They will also diversify the banks' portfolios and give them direct contact with an important socio-economic group. The Government have a strong hand to play and we will watch to ensure that they play it well.
	It is worth remembering that the first two sales of student loans failed to reach the estimated value. Valuations of £1.6 billion and £1.5 billion raised a combined total of just under £2.1 billion when sold. Does the Minister expect to lose as much as a third of the face value with this sale, as the Government have on previous occasions? Is that what he suggested in his opening remarks was good value for money?
	According to the figure we have been given, the sale will involve £6 billion-worth of loans from the current £18 billion, but I am not clear whether that is the amount that the Government expect to receive into Treasury coffers or whether that figure is negotiable. I again remind the Government that these are public assets and Parliament expects full disclosure on how the sale will be handled and conducted. However, I am sure that we can deal with many of these questions in Committee rather than detain the House too long this afternoon.

Bill Rammell: I apologise. With the leave of the House, I seek permission to respond to the debate. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	We have had a good, constructive and, in many ways, consensual debate. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) set out his dedication, which I accept, and that of the Conservative party to widening access to education, particularly higher education. Genuine commitment to widening participation requires consistency in decision making. I charitably remind him of the Conservative party's flip-flopping on student fees. When tuition fees were first introduced in 1998, the Conservatives advocated full top-up fees, with no protection. By the time we took the legislation through the House before the last general election, the Conservatives were opposed to variable fees. Now, they are in favour of the Government's position. Indeed, they now tell us that they want the review on the cap to be brought forward, which would be irresponsible. Some Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), advocate the lifting of the cap before we have the evidence. The Conservative party is somewhat lacking in credibility on this issue.

Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman referred to the extra-sensory powers of the hon. Member for Daventry, who anticipated the next point that he was going to make. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is similarly endowed with those powers, because he has just made the very point that I was coming to.
	We will not rush the sales imprudently. Clearly, it is not possible accurately to market conditions at a given point in the future because they will, naturally, vary for different sales. The powers in the Bill are intended to establish a long-term ongoing programme of sales. We will monitor the market with a view to launching sales at times when market conditions are more stable and less volatile, to help ensure the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. The Bill gives us the ability to sell. All that we have set out so far in the comprehensive spending review is our intention, over the coming three years, to sell £6 billion of student loans. If market conditions are not adequate or appropriate, and do not ensure value for money, sales will not go ahead. I can give that categorical commitment.
	We heard welcome comments about establishing a cross-party consensus, if we can, so that everything possible is done to ensure confidence in the safety of personal data. I refer back to what I said in my opening contribution. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his statement this week. Lord Triesman, the Minister with responsibility for intellectual property and quality, has asked the Student Loans Company to review its operations and data management processes. No breaches of data protection protocols have occurred in respect of student loan administration and we are certain that no data have gone missing in respect of student loan administration. However, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has initiated a wide-ranging review of its security processes and procedures, and we are undertaking a review of student loans and all Departments are reviewing their data management processes. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make further suggestions in Committee, I will be happy to consider them.

John Hayes: I am grateful for the tone of the Minister's remarks. It seems that this is a dynamic situation. Fraudsters are becoming ever-more sophisticated and it might be necessary to look at the matter more closely in Committee, given the events of the last few days. I am happy to accept his suggestion that we could do that on a bipartisan basis, but it might involve taking further advice and making amendments to the Bill to build in extra security—purely because it is important that we reassure the public, students and potential students.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sale of Student Loans Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act, and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.— [Mr. David.]
	 Question agreed to.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

COMPANIES

Frontline Health Services (Haverhill)

Martin Salter: With no sense of irony at all, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box today, especially as it was touch and go as to whether either of us would make it to the Chamber, given the curtailment of Government business. The issue of the future of Britain's most popular recreational fish does not appear to have found any favour on the Opposition Benches. That will come as some surprise to the 1 million sea anglers in England, Scotland and Wales, although perhaps we should leave that matter for another day.
	It is ironic that, if the Minister had not been able to make it here on time—I am delighted that he has—the Whips Office had chosen my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to take his place. He is an angler, and I am sure that he would have agreed with every word that I have to say. To have done so, of course, may have contravened the words that he may have been required to read out.
	This is an Adjournment debate; we are not limited by time, and I know that that will please everybody here. I am genuine in my congratulations to the Minister, who is a friend of mine. In his other role as Minister for the South East, he has impressed many people with how he has worked in the region with local communities struggling to deal with the aftermath of the July floods. I thank him for his two visits to my constituency; he will be aware that it is impossible to visit Reading without being harangued by fisherman, although in the case that I am thinking about they were freshwater fishermen.
	I look forward, particularly in my capacity as Labour's angling spokesman, to the day when I can offer similar praise for the decision that my hon. Friend has made as Minister with responsibility for fisheries. Sadly, as a result of his decision to go back on the commitment made by his predecessor to increase, in the interests of conservation, the minimum landing size of bass, I am not here to praise the Minister but to challenge him—which is, after all, the purpose of this House. His announcement of 25 October on retaining the minimum landing size for bass at 36 cm rather than increasing it to 40 cm and then to 45 cm by 2010, as recommended by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science just two years ago, flies in the face of scientific evidence and has been greeted with understandable anger and dismay by hundreds of thousands of sea anglers, as well as by conservationists. He himself admitted that his decision was based on looking after the short-term interests of the inshore fleet rather than the long-term interests of the species and the environment. I want to tease out those points.
	It is worth reminding the House that the recreational sea angling sector in England and Wales is worth more than £1.3 billion a year to the economy and provides 19,000 non-subsidised jobs. The entire commercial fleet employs only 12,000 people, with considerably fewer in the under-10 m inshore fleet. We should be concerned about the impact of any decision on jobs, but let us not forget the devastating impact that unsustainable fishing has had on all sectors, both commercial and recreational. The livelihoods of charter skippers, who take anglers to sea and depend on healthy fish stocks to maintain a viable business, are every bit as important as those of the commercial fleet. Everybody suffers when a fishery collapses, as we saw in the Grand Banks off Newfoundland and in the American striped bass fishery, or as was nearly the case in respect of North sea cod stocks. Future generations will not remember kindly those politicians who duck the challenge of creating the sustainable harvesting of the resources of our planet.
	The nub of the argument is that we were promised that Britain's most popular fish in terms of its sporting and eating potential would be managed sustainably and primarily as a recreational species. That was a promise made in Downing street, and it should be kept. In 2002, the Prime Minister's strategy unit commissioned a report on the benefits of recreational sea angling. That report, "Net Benefits", was eventually published in 2004, to wide acclaim. It said:
	"Fisheries management should recognise that sea angling may, in some circumstances, provide a better return on the use of some resources than commercial exploitation."
	Among its recommendations were:
	"Fisheries departments should review the evidence supporting arguments for re-designating commercially caught species for wholly recreational sea angling, beginning with bass by the end of 2004."
	That was followed by the findings of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which looked at "Net Benefits" and, in a consensual report on an all-party basis, said:
	"We strongly support the Strategy Unit recommendations to develop the recreational sea angling sector. We believe that the sector, which has considerable economic value, has been overlooked and under-represented for too long."
	In its conclusions, at paragraph 141, it added:
	"We support the re-designation of certain species for recreational use and recognise the benefits that this can bring from both a conservation and economic point of view."
	It is easy to see the direction of travel in terms of public policy in respect of bass and its value to the commercial and recreational sectors. By 2004, we had No. 10, the Government and an all-party Commons Committee moving in the same direction, and it is fair to say that there were reasons to be cheerful. Rarely for a policy, the process survived the 2005 general election; in fact, it was enhanced by it. In Labour's "Charter for Angling", the Minister's predecessor wrote:
	"It was anglers concerns for the conservation status of sea bass that has persuaded me to implement much of the excellent bass management plan put forward by the Bass Anglers Sport Fishing Society."
	That was before the 2005 election. It goes on to say:
	"The bass management plan has suggested:...Nursery Area additional measures and enforcement to protect juveniles"
	and
	"Increases in Minimum Landing Size to strengthen the brood stock."
	I accept that the Minister has announced nursery areas. I welcome that and I praise him for that announcement, but it is only part of the picture. The document concludes:
	"Labour welcomes the publication of the Bass Management Plan and following discussion with the authors, has agreed to a programme of implementation."
	At this point, it is fair to say that the sea angling community was fairly content with my party, and with the direction of travel in respect of the policy of conserving valuable species. The Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), made good that promise when he launched the DEFRA consultation in 2005 to increase the minimum landing size for bass, in order to produce a sustainable fishery with more and bigger bass for the commercial and recreational sectors. That proposal was based on sound science and in the interests of conservation and the environment. It followed a report from CEFAS, which made it perfectly clear that the sound policy to adopt, which would maximise the yield per recruit, would suggest that
	"gains...can be made in all areas by increasing the size at first capture up to about 44-48 cm...At a size of 40 cm at first capture, YPR gains will be small, but significant gains...will be achieved"
	in the long run. In respect of the impact on the commercial fleet, the report says that under a scenario of a 40 cm minimum landing size with no discard mortality,
	"landings were significantly reduced in the short term...but subsequently recovered to levels similar to, or above, the status quo",
	assuming, of course, mesh netting controls and bass nursery areas.
	To summarise the matter of policy, it was quite possible to put together conservation measures that would deliver more and bigger bass for the commercial sector and the recreational sector. The question that all sea anglers are asking is, what has changed? What changed the entire direction of travel of policy from 2002 onwards in the past few months? I go back to CEFAS. It is DEFRA's main agency, and leading scientific body, by which Government policy is informed, and from which it is derived. A presentation was made on 1 October by Mike Smith of CEFAS, which said quite clearly that the
	"analysis...indicated that increasing the age at which bass were first exploited would improve long-term yields and boost recruitment to the spawning stock".
	On a general summary of benefits, it says:
	"The chief policy benefit has been the acceptance that protecting juvenile fish stocks works".
	The optimum spawning size for female bass is 42 cm. It is a simple act of conservation science that every species should be given the opportunity to breed once. Not to do so does not promote sustainable fishing policy. Not to do so would not be in the interests of the environment, or in the interests of the oceans.
	The consultation was launched. There was a predicable outcry from the commercial sector, but then there was an outcry from that sector when conservation measures had to be introduced in the American striped bass fishery and in the Grand Banks in Newfoundland. The commercial fishermen now welcome those measures, which were put in place to sustain the stocks and allow them to recover. It is important that as politicians we take the long-term view, not the short-term one. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter took the long-term view in his statement in 2006 when he announced the conclusions of the consultation and his intention to increase the bass minimum landing size to 40 cm from 36 cm, and then on to 45 cm beyond the optimum spawning size. The DEFRA press release contained quotations from the Minister's predecessor. He said:
	"I have listened very carefully to the representations made and have not taken this decision lightly. I have accepted the arguments for a bigger minimum landing size to help increase the quantity and size of bass. This will also give better protection for the stocks. There may be short term costs from this measure before we see future gains but it is vital that fisheries management takes a long term view."
	I emphasise,
	"it is vital that fisheries management takes a long term view."
	That is not my view. Those are not the words of sea anglers, but those of a previous Fisheries Minister. He went on to say:
	"The recreational fishing sector makes a major contribution to our economy and it is important that their voice, as well as those of commercial fishermen, is taken into account in fisheries management.
	In the future, I intend to increase the landing size further to 45cm, but subject to the results of a review, in 2010"
	in respect of
	"the measures I have announced today.
	The increase to 40cm will bring the minimum landing size closer to the average spawning size for bass...As a result, more juvenile fish will be protected and there would be increased recruitment to the spawning stock. This will in turn increase the number and size of bass available for capture to both the commercial and recreational sector."
	He concluded:
	"I have taken on board the concerns expressed during the consultation by the commercial fishing sector about the impact of an immediate increase to 45cm and the need for a reasonable implementation period to minimise the cost of net replacement."
	It is difficult to establish exactly why the Government have reversed that decision. It is also difficult to understand why the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) is nodding at every phrase that I say. During a recent fisheries debate, he chastised me for supporting a minimum landing size for bass. I have quotations from him that query the wisdom of the Government's going down that road in the first place. Perhaps I should let him speak so that he can explain his absurd attitude.

Bill Wiggin: As we have until half past six, I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What has changed is that the Government have not responded with an alternative. My difficulty was with the minimum landing size as a stand-alone measure was that the purpose is surely to get professional fishermen to change the sort of gear that they use. As a stand-alone measure, the minimum landing size does not achieve that, but as part of the bass management plan it does. That is why I am nodding, why I am pleased that he secured the debate and why I am disappointed that we are not seeing the joined-up thinking on fishing that we were promised by the Government. That is a great shame.

Martin Salter: At the risk of sounding churlish, those political gymnastics are worthy of the Liberal Democrats, who, of course, are not here. One must welcome support wherever it comes from—be it from the Conservatives, or from other sources.
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is a reasonable man. He has sought to be reasonable in everything that he has done. He may have made a decision that, in my view, is fundamentally wrong, but he has attempted to engage all sides in the process. The hon. Member for Leominster has raised an interesting point. We need to weigh in the balance the impact of establishing nursery areas. We also need to weigh in the balance the impact of increasing mesh size from 80 to 90 mm, say, to 100 mm.
	We need to know what the Minister plans to do about inshore netting. Although bass spawn at sea, there is a mass migration to the coastal waters around Britain, particularly around the west country and in the English channel. Those shallow inshore waters are most vulnerable to commercial exploitation. Not only do we need nursery areas and increased net sizes, but, if we are to do the right thing by long-term fisheries conservation, we need to limit inshore netting and trawling in some of those sensitive areas. Of course, the marine Bill, which has cross-party support, will give us the opportunity to do that.
	The Under-Secretary made it clear in his announcement that he is prepared to review the decision. In the face of the science and the change in the direction of travel, what would trigger that review? What would make him question his decision?

Martin Salter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Much as Conservative Members would love to blame the European Union for everything from climate change to the price of cheese, its hands are relatively clean on the issue that we are considering.
	The Under-Secretary is more than capable of speaking for himself, but I believe that he has taken note of representations from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which is a well funded and effective lobby, as, indeed, it should be on behalf of its members. The Under-Secretary has shown concern, especially for the small boat fleets off the south and south-west. Many fishermen are frustrated by their inability to get more of the cod quota. That hit the headlines in recent days.
	That does not negate my point that it is incumbent on us to take the long-term view. The science shows that, although the minimum landing size for bass would mean a short-term depletion in the fish available to be caught by the commercial sector, there would be a long-term increase. The Under-Secretary must recognise that. We are considering centimetres—the difference between 36 and 45 cm. That difference means doubling the weight of the sea bass, which is a valuable species for recreational fishing. Just as people spend a lot of money to catch quality salmon—far more than salmon would ever fetch on a fishmonger's slab—people will spend a lot of money to enjoy quality recreational bass fishing on the fly, by bait or by using lures, plugs and spinners.
	Bass is an immensely valuable resource, which we should protect. Global warming means that stocks of juvenile bass have risen to some extent, but the recreational fishery is undervalued if only stunted bass are available through the removal of a great proportion of the stock at too early a stage in its life. That is why the decision is wrong and represents short-term thinking. That is bad for local economies in the long run.
	Many strategy documents come out of DEFRA, and that is welcome. The Under-Secretary has published the recreational sea angling strategy, which promises more and bigger fish while at the same time not raising the minimum landing size for bass—the most important fish for recreational sea fishing.
	Here and in meetings throughout the country, I have tried to make the Government's case for a sea licence. There is an argument for a sea licence, although I absolutely agree with the National Federation of Sea Anglers that it could be implemented only if sea anglers see a significant improvement in the sport available to them. The decision that has been taken—this extraordinary U-turn—drives a coach and horses not only through the recreational sea angling strategy, but through any attempt that I or others could make to create a consensus on a sea rod licence.
	The Prime Minister has talked about vision. We need to talk about vision if we are serious about protecting the harvest that our oceans can deliver for us. My worry is that the decision that has been taken is short term and lacks the vision to which we must all aspire.

Martin Salter: I think that I have now. I am particularly minded to forge an all-party consensus in light of the helpful comments made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), who I believe might have something to say.

Jonathan R Shaw: In making decisions of this kind, we have to weigh the competing demands. I am trying to explain why I reached my decision within the competing demands represented by the wishes of anglers who have presented the powerful case articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and the representations made to me by fishermen. I will, however, make some further points which are relevant to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).
	I have also heard the argument that an increase in the MLS would have generated an increase in angling activity which would outweigh the financial impact on commercial fishermen. I have some sympathy with that argument, and I accept that managing fisheries to take account of anglers' requirements could develop the sport and lead to increases in angling-related expenditure on items such as tackle, bait, travel and accommodation. Bass anglers have made that point as part of their case for an increase, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West referred to it as well. Our analysis was less certain: despite the large increase in the stock in recent years, the evidence that we had on bass angling showed that the number of bass anglers over a similar period had not changed significantly. Our analysis also showed that many shore anglers would not see the benefits from an increase, as most bass inshore measure less than 40 cm.
	Generally there are limited data available relating specifically to angling for bass. I accept that that is a shortcoming, and I aim to address it through a research and development study that I announced along with my decision on bass.

Stephen O'Brien: I am interested in the fact that the Minister has a research and development study in mind.
	One of the greatest expenditures in recreational sea bass angling is the boat. That is certainly the case for those who fish off north Wales and in the Dee estuary in my part of the world. That expenditure is often entered into with a repayment term of some years, so predictability of risk is needed.
	Counting the number of recreational sea bass fishermen must also be looked into carefully. I cannot believe that the figures are as constant as suggested, given that I am told—even by one of my neighbours—that they fish regularly and often invite friends, who are therefore introduced to the sport in a way that might mean that they are not counted in the statistics.

Martin Salter: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I say to him that I have no intention of bobbing up and down and keeping on interrupting him.
	Does the Minister feel well served by the data put before him? It is not possible to define a bass angler. They are not spawned on the moon and exported down to Britain. Bass is a sporting species. Many trout, salmon and coarse anglers, for example, enjoy bass fishing, but they might not appear in data. From my extensive contacts in the angling world, it is my contention that bass angling is becoming more popular but is at risk as people are frustrated at the lack of availability of decent-sized bass to catch. Baby bass angling has not got a strong future, and that is where we are at present.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful for those interventions. I accept that there are shortcomings in respect of the available data. We must improve that, and I will say a little more about the matter shortly. This is an important sport, and we need to understand it better because it makes a significant contribution to communities—coastal communities in particular.
	The regulatory impact assessment identified that other measures might achieve the aim of the increased MLS without the substantial cost to the fishing industry. We also need to ensure that the bass fishery remains sustainable. That is the reason for my announcement of a package of measures which will provide benefits for bass stocks and anglers.
	The measures include a review of the current series of 37 nursery areas around the coast of England and Wales which have proved so successful in protecting juvenile bass. We will also be considering having more nursery areas where significant new juvenile populations of bass require protection as a result of climate warming causing bass to spawn further north and with greater success. We will also explore the pros and cons of strengthening protection in the existing areas.
	I also announced that we are funding a pilot study to explore whether closing specific coastal areas to fishing would let more bass in local populations grow bigger, and the practicalities of doing so. We will also review inshore netting restrictions where there is the potential to deliver benefits to anglers.
	In respect of all those areas, I hope that I can rely on my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and sea bass anglers to work with the Department and to ensure that our review process delivers what we all want.

Martin Salter: I assure the Minister that, despite my anger at this decision, I will continue to work constructively with him and his Department to seek to rebuild the consensus that has been damaged by the decision. I welcome the fact that he has agreed to meet with sea anglers next week. I am in discussion with many sea angling bodies, and they are looking forward to having a similar robust but polite discussion with him.

Jonathan R Shaw: In announcing my decision, I said that I would review the MLS, but I need to take account of a host of factors, particularly the under-10 m fleet's quota. Within our 2020 vision for fisheries we want a sustainable under-10 m fleet and a buoyant sea angling fraternity. We want all sides to be able to enjoy the sea and the benefits that we derive from it. My hon. Friend referred to the marine Bill, and we will be bringing forward a draft of that in the spring. Many of these matters are pertinent to that. I said that I will review the decision, and I shall do so. We must ensure that we put in place the measures to which I referred. I look forward to working with him and others on those measures, so that we can make progress.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Six o'clock.